The QA Handbook (QAH) is a non-normative handbook about the
process and operational aspects of certain quality assurance practices of
W3C's Working Groups, with particular focus on testability and test topics.
It is intended for Working Group chairs and team contacts. It aims to help
them to avoid known pitfalls and benefit from experiences gathered from the
W3C Working Groups themselves. It provides techniques, tools, and templates
that should facilitate and accelerate their work. This document is one of the
QA Framework (QAF) family of documents of the Quality Assurance (QA)
Activity. QAF includes the other in-progress or planned specifications:
Specification Guidelines (in progress), and Test
Guidelines (planned).
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its
publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current
W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be
found in the W3C technical
reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.
This document is a W3C Working Draft (WD), made available by the QA Working Group of the W3C Quality
Assurance (QA) Activity for discussion by W3C Members and other interested
parties. For more information about the QA Activity, please see the QA Activity
statement.
This is the second published Working Draft of this document. It should be
the last version before Last Call WD. This version still has fewer examples
than desired (an appeal for examples has been circulated). This version also
has a handful of "TBD" editorial notes.
The main changes for the next (Last Call) version will be to directly
research the projects for more examples, complete the TBDs, and to finish the development of the
linked templates.
The QA Handbook will be coordinated with the other parts of
the QA Framework, the in-progress QA Framework: Specification
Guidelines [QAF-SPEC] and the planned QA
Framework: Test Guidelines [QAF-TEST]. As
explained at [QAF-TEST], Test Guidelines
development is temporarily on hold, and Test Guidelines material
is being developed in an idea-incubator area of the QA Activity Wiki pages.
Synchronization of all active parts at a uniform level of maturity is
intended before advancing beyond Last Call.
The QAWG does not expect this
document to become a Recommendation. Rather, after further development,
review and refinement, it will finally be published and maintained as a
Working Group Note.
Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C
Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or
obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this
document as other than work in progress.
Comments on this document may be emailed to www-qa@w3.org, the publicly archived list
of the QA Interest Group.
Commenters please note that your comments will be publicly
archived and available, do not send information that should not be
distributed, such as private data. Please give any feedback by 22 October
2004, so that it may be considered by QAWG at its next face-to-face meeting.
- Introduction & roadmap
- Early planning and commitment
- Day-to-day QA operations
- Licensing & branding
- Acquiring test materials
- Acknowledgments
- References
- Change History
This document has two separate external appendices, QA Process Document
template and Charter template,
which contain templates to help Working Group Chairs and Staff Contacts to
implement the document's good practice guidelines.
The following five use cases for The QA Handbook (QAH), told as stories, show when and how
QAH could be helpful. They cover
five different situations that might typically arise over the life of the
Working Group.
The QA Handbook could be useful to Chairs and Staff Contacts
at Charter time...
Story 1: Think about quality early
The Charter-drafting team of a new Working Group, led by Staff Contacts and
co-Chairs, looks through The QA Handbook. Following the good
practices in the early-commitment and
planning module, the team debates how much it can realistically commit to
at this early stage. After deciding on some test materials deliverables,
milestones, and specification synchronization that it considers to be safe
commitments, the team uses the provided Charter Template to include these in
the draft Charter.
Or it could help a Chair who is trying to jump-start a test suite
project...
Story 2: Jump-starting a testing
effort
An existing Working Group has just finished writing its Requirements and Use
Cases documents, and has begun to draft its specification. At the same time,
it is taking a first look at its test suite plans. As recommended in the
The QA Handbook, the Chair jump starts the Test Suite project by
appointing a point of contact and part-time
Test Suite team, whose first output is a quick QA Process Document (QAPD)
using the provided QAPD template.
Or maybe the Chairs and Staff Contacts are pondering the transfer of a
test suite from an external entity...
Story 3: Test-suite transfer
A Working Group has re-chartered to finish a Second Edition of its
specification, and to develop the next functional version. The group did not
develop a test suite during its first charter, but a collaboration of outside
organizations and an industry consortium has developed one. The Chair and
Staff Contacts have negotiated an agreement in principle to transfer the test
suite to a stable home in W3C. In The QA Handbook, they find a
handy checklist of preliminary steps,
requirements, and specific activities for a smooth transfer.
Or maybe they need to take preemptive action due to looming possible
license-issue hassles...
Story 4: Test suite licensing
A Working Group is almost ready to request Candidate Recommendation (CR), and has gotten a
comprehensive test suite together for the CR's trial implementation
period. As the Chair starts to arrange for publication of the test suite, she
finds the Working Group split on which test suite distribution licenses to
use. Consulting The QA Handbook, she finds discussion of the pros and cons of the W3C licenses (the Software
License and the Document
License), and advice on devising an optimal licensing strategy.
Or maybe they can borrow the experience of other W3C Working Groups for
various useful and common test suite processes...
Story 5: Test development processes
A Working Group has built and released a basic test suite for its
specification. A Staff Contact has been given the Action Item to plan its
expansion to a more comprehensive test suite, by leveraging and integrating
the large test collections of several early implementors. Rather than figure
out the issues and write a Test Contribution & Review process from
scratch, he looks at the summary advice in
The QA Handbook. QAH
points him both to some useful templates, and to more detailed stuff in
QA Framework: Test Guidelines [QAF-TEST], significantly shortening his effort to
complete his action item.
Chairs and Staff Contacts are overworked. They share a lot of the same
concerns and pressures as specification
editors (see 2.1, "Specification editors").
Common problems include:
- never enough motivated people to do the work;
- deliverables delivered late;
- licensing and legal hassles;
- too much to do, so little time
A lot of groups have faced these issues. As a result, there is a growing
body of experience in W3C about what works and what doesn't. QAH aims to pull this together.
The QA Handbook (QAH) is intended for: Chairs and Staff
Contacts of W3C Working Groups. These include both the process-savvy as well
as the novices.
QAH is a practical guide about
applying good practices and quality assurance techniques to WG activities,
especially developing Recommendations and test materials. It flags avoidable
pitfalls, and provides techniques, tools, and templates that will facilitate
and accelerate the work of the groups. Guidance in QAH is supported by
real-world stories and examples.
There is no normative content in QAH, therefore conformance to QAH is not an issue. QAH takes this approach for several
reasons, mainly:
- the diversity amongst W3C's working groups makes it difficult to craft
simple normative rules for all;
- in diverse, people-centric processes, it is more effective to encourage
and help than to mandate and proscribe.
Advice is presented in the imperative voice as Principles and
Good Practices. These suggestions will generally be helpful and
enhance the quality of the work of a Working Group. However, each suggestion
should be applied or not depending on the specific situation of the WG.
The QA Handbook (QAH) is a non-normative handbook for
integrating quality assurance techniques and good practices into the Working
Group. It focuses especially on factors affecting development and
implementation of specifications and tests, including:
- people resources;
- deliverables and their schedules;
- interaction with W3C and the world;
- W3C process, licenses, etc.
Better specifications and effective test development are emphasized goals
in QAH and its companion documents. In support of those goals, the scope of
QAH goes beyond a narrow focus on authoring topics, and touches on many
aspects of the broader context in which Working Groups operate -- from
writing charters, to the logistics of managing the group's quality practices,
to interacting with other groups and the public, to completion and
maintenance.
The QA Handbook belongs to a document family collectively
called the QA Framework. The other in-progress or planned parts
of the QA Framework are:
- QA Framework: Specification Guidelines [QAF-SPEC]
- QA Framework: Test Guidelines [QAF-TEST]
Editors, test builders, and W3C members in general, in addition to Chairs
and Staff Contacts, will find advice specific to their roles in these other
framework parts.
A brief orientation to the whole QA Framework is provided in
a companion QA note,
- QA Framework Primer & User Scenarios [QAF-PRIM].
Other valuable documents about quality assurance techniques and good
practices are found outside of the QA Activity and its QA
Framework. QA Framework identifies and links to these
whenever appropriate.
After this orientation section, QAH contains four topical modules:
Each presents advice and guidance about tasks that
contribute to the WG's realization of quality specifications and tests. These
tend to have a chronological correspondence to phases (rec-track stages) of
its activities. Earlier is better, but later is better than never. Figure
1 depicts when, in a Working Group's life, the various QAH topics are ideally dealt with and
applicable:
[TBD. If
someone volunteers one, here will be a chronology diagram, e.g., a chopped
down version of the OpsGLchronology diagram]
Why care?It's not always easy to
anticipate Working Group needs during the rush and pressure of Chartering, or
in the busyness of early Working Group life. But the earlier the group can
accurately identify and commit to its test and other quality related
deliverables, the less likely it is that the WG will get major surprises
later on, or run into problems that will delay its progress towards
Recommendation.
Additional reason — binding decisions about participation (e.g.,
numbers per company) often are made at Charter time.
What does this mean? In practice, this
means attention to a handful of points, which we enumerate as Good
Practices.
Good Practice: Decide as soon as possible
— will the Working Group build test materials or acquire them?
Clearly, it is going to make a big difference in a Working Group's
staffing requirements — building test materials tends to be labor
intensive (extremely so for some types of specifications). Even if the group
imports them, some resources will have to be applied (see the final module). The particular test-related activities and
milestones in its programme of work will in general be completely different
for build versus acquire options.
Good Practice: Think about and
enumerate the quality-related deliverables
that might help the Working Group through the Recommendation track.
Minimally, commit to assuring the timely existence of test materials.
Different kinds of quality-related deliverables, with emphasis on
tests and specification testability, might include:
- basic test suites,
- validators,
- test assertions,
- one or more specification quality reviews (using Specification
Guidelines [QAF-SPEC]),
- comprehensive test materials (beyond basic coverage),
- tests of new, changed, or contentious functionality.
Test materials are by far the most common quality-related deliverable, and likely will be a
key to quick and painless passage through Candidate Recommendation (CR).
Good Practice: Synchronize quality-related deliverables with specification
milestones, and for the bigger deliverables, define and schedule intermediate
milestones if possible.
This advice echoes that in Tips for Getting to Recommendation
Faster [REC-TIPS] for example
see item #6 in section 2. Quality related deliverables include especially
test materials, but could include as well such other items as are enumerated above.
Good Practice: Consider whether the
Working Group should tie any quality criteria
to Rec-track advancement.
For example, finishing test materials deliverables before requesting
Candidate Recommendation (CR) is important, in order to
facilitate CR's
Implementation Assessment. (Counter-example: as in the above Story, if the group is still building them
during CR, it is likely
to uncover things that will oblige it to cycle in CR.)
This good practice takes the synchronization of deliverables of the previous Good Practice a step further
— the specification may not advance unless the committed test or other quality criteria are met.
How
to Organize a Recommendation Track Transition [TRANSITION] talks some about the role of test
suites in advancement decisions.
Good Practice: Put some thought into how
to staff the Working Group's test and other quality
assurance plans.
The earlier this is done, the more options will be available. Some options
include:
- dedicated team from Working Group participants;
- part of everyone's time;
- Consider: asking in Call for Participation for extra people who would
specifically be tasked to work on test and any
other quality-related tasks.
The third option is not really different from the first. It's just a way
of doing it. But notice that it's an option that is only available by looking
into these questions at Charter time.
By the way, there has been confusion [TBD: find the chairs archive reference] about
"W3C Process only allows each company to have two participants on the Working
Group". In fact, that is not from W3C Process. W3C Process gives considerable
freedom for this to be tailored to Working Group needs — W3C
Process says it may be specified in the Charter. So, for example, the
group could decide on these rules: allow two per company in technical
discussion, issue resolution, voting, etc; and, allow additional dedicated
test suite builders.
By the way, this is another good reason to put some thought into test
suite plans and other quality-related deliverables as early as possible.
Tips for
Getting to Recommendation Faster [REC-TIPS] (section 3) also talks some about the value of
(early) staffing decisions.
Examples:
- [TBD. next version, get some existing
examples from old OpsGL/ET and Intro]
- [TBD. during reviews, explicitly solicit good
examples and especially some counter-examples]
How can I do it?
- The Charter template
provides for a superset of the things that one might want to specify and
commit to early (at chartering time). Use it for those items that are
deemed appropriate to write it into the charter.
- While often "earlier is better", Charter time may not be appropriate
for each and every of the above Good-Practice recommendations, for every
Working Group. In some cases, it might be premature to commit to that
level of detail at that early stage of the groups life.
The W3C
Process Document clearly organizes the way that a Working Group's specs
are progressed through the Rec track. But there is no similar template for
the other aspects of a Working Group's life, particularly aspects related to
test and other quality assurance processes
— logistical setup, communications with the outside, licensing and
branding policy, test development process, etc.
Examples:
- DOM has a thorough test
suite process document referenced from its /Test/ Web page. Starting at the
Test page, one finds complete information about communications and
logistics, licensing, submission and acceptance procedures, test
materials location, and test suite status.
- Starting at the CSS /Test/
page, one quickly finds the location of CSS test materials, excellent
test
suite documentation for users and contributors (includes templates)
alike, and an additional test authoring
guidelines document. (Some operational details -- e.g.,
communications and licensing -- are less easily located.)
Good
Practice: Put all of the Working Group's important test and other quality-related information in one
place in a QA Process Document.
How can I do it? Simple: Use the QA
Process Document template. It will guide the user through everything
needed, and then some. It is not only a template, but also a checklist of
sorts, for the sort of things that the Working Group should consider having
in its QA Process Document. The template has been assembled as the union of
good practices seen in real QA Process Documents of W3C Working Groups.
In the past, before this template, test efforts would often copy-edit an
existing process document from another effort. There is not really any reason
to do this anymore. Here are some examples from which the template has been
assembled:
What does it mean? In practice, it means producing a QA
Process Document recording at least those details of the Working Group's
test and quality assurance work processes
that are outlined in the template and briefly discussed in the following
subsections.
See the corresponding
section in the template.
Good Practice: Identify a Working Group
point-of-contact about test materials or other quality-related business.
This can be a special appointed "QA point-of-contact". Or it might be the
Chair (or a co-chair), or Staff Contact. The important part is that there be
an identified point-of-contact to whom others can address questions, bug
reports, contributions, etc, and who will be accountable for responding.
See also the QA
Process Document subsection in the template.
Good Practice: Specify an archived email list
to use for quality-related communications
(test suite questions, bug reports, contributions, etc).
It can be a dedicated "Test" list. Or it can be a public Interest Group
list. Or it can be a public comment list separate from the Working Group
list, in the case that there isn't an Interest Group. Because of the variety
of public/private mixes amongst W3C's Working Groups, "one size fits all"
does not work well here.
See also the corresponding
QA Process Document subsection in the template.
Good
Practice: Identify Web page(s) for test suites, announcements, and
other quality-related topics.
Obviously, this needs to be publicly accessible. Doing it all in the
public portion of the Working Group's Web space is one way to achieve that.
In particular, that provides a good, secure repository location for test
materials.
Some groups, for example SVG, have two locations actually
— a private CVS repository for the in-development test materials, and a
simplified public location
for periodic public releases of test materials.
Examples:
- SVG uses a helpful convention for its test suite pages -- the
URL is the SVG home page
URL (http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/) with /Test/ appended. Additionally,
the test page is prominently linked from the SVG home page.
- The XML test pages follow the
same useful convention -- their location is a /Test/ directory under the
WG home page.
Recommended technique: Link the test pages from the
Working Group's home page, and use the common convention of putting them in
the /Test/ directory under the Working Group's home page.
See also the corresponding
QA Process Document subsection in the template.
The Working Group's QA Process Document is also a handy central location
to record its licensing policies and (any) branding policies. These are
sufficiently important that they have their own
QAH module, which
addresses:
- license terms applicable to test materials, both submitted and
published;
- any branding policy — logos, conformance icons, etc — and
associated rules and restrictions.
[EdTBD. The QA Process
Document subsection references in this section need to be refined more
precisely.]
If the Working Group is developing test materials itself, then there are
several topics associated with test materials development process are going
to impact its operations and management. These are described, along with
Principle and Good Practice guidance, in some detail in
QA Framework: Test Guidelines [QAF-TEST]. These topics, which might conveniently be
documented in the Working Group's QA Process Document (QAPD), include definitions of:
Finally, as a part of
planning about "life after Working Group", the group will need to decide what
happens to both its test materials and associated processes. These
maintenance-related topics are described in some detail in QA
Framework: Test Guidelines [QAF-TEST] , but again the information might conveniently
be located in the group's QA Process Document:
- what happens to the test materials themselves?
- what happens to the Working Group's contribution and review processes?
[QAPD sub-section]
- how to track errata and (for example) new specification editions? [QAPD sub-section]
- what happens with bug reports about the test materials? [QAPD sub-section]
Success criteria:
Principle: Get agreement up front about
license and any other legal issues around planned test materials.
Why care?Get it right early, or it may
stall the Working Group's Rec-track progress indefinitely. While this might
seem to be a routine piece of Day-to-day
operations, it has proved to be sufficiently troublesome within W3C that
it deserves to be a Principle by itself.
What does this mean? There are two kinds
of licensing issues: submission license, and publication license. Both of
them can be problematic and can interrupt the Working Group's progress on
Rec-track if not early addressed and carefully handled. Test materials
license issues are the subject of ongoing debate and discussion within W3C,
but there are some tactics to minimize potential problems.
Good Practice: As early as possible,
get agreement about acceptable license terms for submission of test
materials.
W3C currently has a more or less routine submission license, Contribution
of Software or Test Materials to W3C [CONTRIB]. By early attention, it should become clear
whether any potential test sources have problems with the standard terms,
before possible disputes can impact the Working Group's deliverables and
schedules. There have been cases where potential submitters would not accept
the standard terms.
Good Practice: As soon as the nature
of the Working Group's test materials becomes clear, get agreement about
license terms for publication of the test materials.
Any W3C-hosted materials must have approved license and use terms.
Experience has shown that there is no single license that is appropriate for
all parts of all test materials, so the Working Group needs to address this
after it has come to an understanding of the structure, content, and intended
use of its test materials.
Currently approved W3C licenses that may be applied to test materials are
the Document
License and the Software
License. The Document License has two characteristics that are attractive
for test materials:
- It prohibits the test materials from being modified by the user upon
download, therefore guaranteeing the integrity of the test materials;
- It requires that if the test materials are copied or redistributed,
they must contain the link to the original test materials and their
status.
On the other hand, there are situations in which the Document
License is inappropriate, because (for example) some parts of the test
materials require modification or completion in order to apply them.
The W3C Advisory
Board feels (member-only link) that the Document License is the
appropriate license for test cases.
That ruling notwithstanding, test materials might contain some mixture of
different components: test software, test documentation, and test cases (see
Test Guidelines[QAF-TEST]).
In some cases, one license may be appropriate for some component(s) of the
test materials, but another license may be better for other parts. A careful
look at the test materials' composition and use cases should reveal what is
the best solution.
The Working Group should consult with W3C Legal if it believes that:
Here are
TBD:
Example(s): (Especially need an example of creative multi-component license
solution.) .
Good Practice: Consider whether or not
to have brands, logos, or conformance icons associated with the Working
Group's test materials. Define associated policies.
W3C Logo
and Icon Usage contains a complete catalog of the logos in use
within W3C. Of particular interest (related to conformance) are the logos
associated with content validation (HTML, CSS, etc), Web Accessibility
conformance, etc. These logos have associated issues of veracity and
enforceability of conformance claims. A Working Group considering its own
logo or brand will face similar issues, amongst which are:
- terms for valid application of the logo;
- relationship of the logo to conformance claims;
- challenge procedures for disputed logo usage;
- policing & enforcement policy.
[Ed TBD. The preceding discussion should be expanded
in next version, and supplemented with examples (below).]
Two final comments about both the topics of licenses and logos/brands:
- There are places in QA
Process Document template to document the Working Group's decisions,
about licenses as well as branding/logos.
- Don't forget to make license terms obvious and visible in all
deliverables (and all their bits and pieces)!
Examples:
[TBD. It
will be fairly easy to list a handful of good examples. Especially for
brands/logos. WAI, W3C content validators, etc]
Principle: The Working Group can save
lots of time and work by acquiring a test suite, but be ready to address and
resolve many of the same issues as build-your-own scenarios.
The three main problems are:
- license issues around test materials
- human resources
- quality of the test materials
The license and human resources issues are similar in concept to what the
Working Group faces when building test materials, but probably lesser in
degree. A pre-transfer quality assessment might seem unique to the acquire
option, but the actual steps will probably look similar to a test case
contribution/review process in a build-your-own scenario (see QA
Framework: Test Guidelines [QAF-TEST]).
Good Practice: Do a quality assessment of
proposed test materials before going any further.
Basic things that a good quality assessment might cover would for example
include:
- clear declaration of scope,
- traceability,
- atomicity,
- user documentation.
A more comprehensive list of things that an assessment process could add
to that basic list:
- maintainer documentation,
- correctness,
- completeness (vis à vis declared scope),
- harnesses or interfaces for application of the test materials,
- reconfigurability,
- results assessment,
- results recording & reporting,
- automation features,
- versioning/errata support,
- declaration of publication licenses,
- integrated submission procedures.
QA Framework: Test Guidelines [QAF-TEST] deals with this topic in much more detail,
including (planned) templates and assessment aids.
Good Practice: Ensure there are enough
human resources to support the transferred test materials.
A test materials manager is still needed, but total human resources ought
to be considerably less than build-your-own scenarios. With luck, the
original manager of the external test materials source might become a
participant in the Working Group after the test materials are transferred.
Good Practice: Sort out licensing issues
with the external party that produced the test materials.
How can I do it?
This is a virtualization of an actual
transfer scenario that QA helped to moderate. It could serve as a
checklist of steps to consider for Working Group's taking the
acquire route.
Legend: EG the
external group or entity; QAWG the QA Working Group;
TM the test
materials; WG the
Working Group acquiring the test materials.
- Before the transfer, WG with
the help of QAWG:
- performs an assessment of the quality of candidate test matrials (by WG, QAWG)
- identifies and commits to a set of test-related deliverables from
the candidate test
matrials. These could be: releases, appeal/challenge
processes, maintenance plan, submission/review process, Web site,
mail list, etc. (by WG)
- identifies sufficient staffing, including at least a test matrials manager.
Recommendation: recruit the test matrials manager from the
EG (if one exists) to
become a WG participant
after the transfer. (by WG)
- makes the decision to seek/accept the transfer. (by WG)
- (potentially) initiates Charter amendment (by WG, QAWG may consult), if the test matrials acquisition doesn't
fit within the current Charter.
- During the transfer:
- EG and W3C reach
agreement to transfer the test
matrials (by WG,
QAWG, EG)
- WG and EG perform the actual transfer of
the test matrials, WG creates an initial repository (by
WG, EG)
- After transfer, initial test development/framework process setup:
- WG appoints a test matrials manager.
- The test matrials manager
creates a QA Process Document for WG (by WG, test matrials manager, QAWG may consult)
- set up the test matrials
home page, a test matrials
issues mailing list (by WG,
test matrials manager)
- determine the appropriate W3C publication license (by WG, QAWG)
- First W3C public release of the new test matrials:
- make any needed enhancements prior to the first public release: fix
known/reported errors, produce documentation (by WG), W3C license labelling, etc.
- announce the first public release of test matrials (by test matrials manager,
Communications Group)
- joint W3C/EG press
release (by WG, QAWG, Communications Group,
EG)
- After the first public release, the test matrials enter the maintenance
phase (see QA Framework: Test Guidelines [QAF-TEST].
The following QA Working Group and Interest Group participants have
contributed significantly to this document:
- Daniel Dardailler (W3C),
- Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon),
- Karl Dubost (W3C),
- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C),
- Lofton Henderson (CGM Open),
- David Marston (Lotus Development Corp),
- Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems),
- Lynne Rosenthal (NIST),
- Mark Skall (NIST),
- Andrew Thackrah (Open Group),
- Olivier Thereaux (W3C),
- Jeremy Carroll (Hewlett-Packard)
- [PROCESS]
- World Wide Web
Consortium Process Document, I. Jacobs, Ed., 05 February
2004, available at http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/ .
- [CONTRIB]
- Contribution
of Software or Test Materials to W3C, which defines
W3C-approved procedures and terms for submission of Software and Test
Materials, available at
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/contribution-grant-20021231
.
- [PROTOCOL-WG-TS]
- The XML Protocol WG has a TS process document, available at
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/ts-contribution, and a contribution/submission
license (example of a submission legal notice), available at
http://www.w3.org/2001/10/test-materials-license.html .
- [REC-TIPS]
- Tips
for Getting to Recommendation Faster, a public part of the
(Member-only) W3C
Guidebook.
- [QA-GLOSSARY]
- A comprehensive glossary of QA terms, maintained by the QA Working
Group. (Incomplete
version under construction at http://www.w3.org/QA/glossary .)
- [QAF-PRIM]
- QA Framework
Primer & User Scenarios, an informative supplement to
The QA Handbook that provides an orientation to whole QA
Framework, including a primer and some user scenaios. Published as a QA
note at http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qaframe-primer .
- [QAF-SPEC]
- QA
Framework: Specification Guidelines, Karl Dubost, L.
Rosenthal, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux, Lofton Henderson, Eds., W3C
Working Draft companion to this document, 02 June 2004. A light-weight
revision of the previous
(Candidate Recommendation) Specification Guidelines
collection of documents. Available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20040830/ .
- [QAF-TEST]
- QA Framework: Test
Guidelines, a planned future W3C Working Draft companion to
this document. It will be a light-weight revision of the last-published
Test Guidelines (Working Draft). June 2004
face-to-face resolved to put further Test Guidelines
publication on hold for now, until QAH and SpecLite have stabilized and
resources become available. Test-related
Wiki pages will meanwhile be used to develop material.
- [QAWG]
- Quality Assurance
Working Group of the W3C QA Activity, which may be found at
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/ .
- [TRANSITION]
- How to Organize a
Recommendation Track Transition, a part of the Member Guide
(Member-only), is available at http://www.w3.org/2004/02/02-transitions
.
- 2004-08-30, Second Published Draft
- edits for improved language, removal of excessive use of
abbreviations, etc (per J.Carroll
comments).
- changed vague usage of "IPR", to be more specific (per D.Connolly
comments).
- anchors on all PRs and GPs, plus at all example-placeholder
locations.
- indicate "back burner" status of TestGL (in SoTD, and in
References -- leave alone the body text for now).
- split out the "Orientation to QA Framework" appendix into
separate QA Framework Roadmap document.
- integrated K.Dubost
comments.
- integrated M.Skall
comments.
- integrated L.Rosenthal
comments.
- integrated changes to the legal/license Good Practices, per
recent AB rulings.
- sorted out JC's scope comment ("test & testability") and
implemented solution.
- first cut at sorting out class="vague" stuff (needs critical
review)
- drafted icon/logo section (but more needed next version)
- fleshed out examples in section 3.1 (General modus operandi)
- 2004-05-10, First Published Working Draft
- Combines the best features of the former QA Framework:
Introduction and QA Framework: Operational
Guidelines into a lightweight, non-normative handbook for W3C
Working Group Chairs and Staff contacts.