In order for W3C Web standards to achieve full interoperability and access to all, the quality of implementations needs as much attention as specifications' development. The quality of specifications and the early availability of test materials (TM) are significant contributors to the quality of implementations.
Early commitment to quality practices at a suitable level, followed by identification of specific QA deliverables, milestones, and advancement criteria for the WG's specifications, is a prerequisite for detailed planning, execution, and timely achievement of a suitable quality level across all of a WG's activities.
This guideline and Guideline 2 concern the early statement by the Working Group of degree(s) of QA commitment, commitment to test materials and other QA deliverables, and commitment to needed QA staffing resources. See also the chronological view of the guidelines in Chapter 1.
New Working Groups -- i.e., those that are writing and submitting their charters for approval -- are required in this guideline's checkpoints to make the specified commitments in their charters. Working Groups that are renewing their charters are considered the same as new WGs. Existing Working Groups could satisfy the checkpoints by amendment to their charter, or in other ways, the latter to be specified in QA Framework: Operational Examples & Techniques [OPS-EXTECH].
This checkpoint is about early commitment of the WG to its intended degree of quality practices in various aspects of its activities. It is not about the actual performance or delivery of quality practices and deliverables.
For existing working groups that make the QA commitment after chartering, various ways to do it are discussed in the Examples & Techniques document.
This checkpoint is about early commitment of the WG about its test materials intentions. It is not about the specific deliverables, nor about the details of the test materials or their actual production and delivery.
For existing working groups that make the test materials commitment after chartering, various ways to do it are discussed in the Examples & Techniques document.
This checkpoint is about early commitment of the WG about its test materials intentions. It is not about the specific deliverables, nor about the details of the test materials or their actual production and delivery. For existing working groups that make the test materials commitment after chartering, various ways to do it are discussed in the Examples & Techniques document.
The W3C Process Document requires that Charters identify deliverables and associate them with milestones. Examples of QA deliverables include sets of use cases, primers, collections of test assertions, test suites (produced or acquired), validators, and test harnesses.
It is natural for test suites and implementations to develop in parallel -- each is a help to the development of the other. A de facto convention of test suite completion before entrance into PR phase (and by implication, completion of CR phase) seems to be a common goal amongst a number of the existing test suite efforts. For example, SVG, UAAG, and DOM have defined this criterion. The test suites were used to demonstrate two correct, interoperable implementations of each feature, as recommended in the W3C Process Document.
It is highly beneficial to the success of the Working Group's QA work that it address QA resource requirements from the beginning of the Working Group formation, and reexamine the requirements throughout the WG's life cycle.
This guideline and Guideline 1 concern the early statement by the Working group of levels of overall QA commitment, commitment to test materials and other QA deliverables, and commitment to needed QA staffing resources. See further discussion of the chronology of the guidelines in "Introduction".
The sooner the resource needs are defined and a resource level is committed, the better. Therefore new Working Groups -- i.e., those that are writing and submitting their Charters for approval -- are required to have the resource commitments in their charters. Working Groups whose charters are being renewed are considered the same as new WGs. While "sooner is better", existing Working Groups can still satisfy the checkpoints, in other ways to be specified in QA Framework: Operational Examples & Techniques [OPS-EXTECH].
Determining whether the WG plans to produce the test materials themselves or get them from other sources is a first step in the overall planning for QA deliverables. Identifying the scenario for producing these deliverables is a prerequisite to estimating the resources and effort needed for the WG's level of QA commitment.
TM-production scenarios range from all intra- WG effort concurrent with other WG deliverables, to importing completed materials from an external group, and hybrid internal-external efforts. Further discussion and example scenarios are found in Operational Examples & Techniques.
For any acceptable level of QA commitment, there will be some staffing requirement. If the WG addresses the staffing level at the same time that it defines the commitment level and general scenario, then that both helps to confirm that the overall plans are realistic, as well as facilitates that the commitments will be successfully realized.
Depending upon the general intent and plan, and how the test materials will be built, the commitment can range from minimal to significant. At a minimum, a QA point-of-contact will be needed by the WG.
The WG needs explicit indication of resources available for QA, in order to know whether Working Group capabilities are commensurate with its deliverables and milestones. If the WG emphasizes in its participation calls that QA specialists are needed and welcome, that should facilitate getting competent and interested people to work on the WG's QA commitments.
Once the Charter is prepared, the Director sends a Call for Participation to the Advisory Committee. At this point AC Representatives are asked to provide information about amount and type of resources their organization plans to allocate for the particular Working Group. Note that W3C Process [PROCESS] allows a WG to have several participants per Member, and it is up to the WG to determine details such as any further numerical restrictions, composition by specialty, etc.
The benefits of starting synchronization of the specification and test materials development as early as possible include:
Because each published version of the specification -- WDs, CR(s), PR, etc -- is a changed document, all important dependencies such as test materials need to be updated concurrently.
QA deliverables to be synchronized must include at least the test materials to which the WG has committed -- see Checkpoints 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. For such test materials, the WG might for example synchronize the first public release of a test suite (TS) with Candidate Recommendation (CR). The Working Group should consider and attempt to synchronize other QA deliverables as well, for example:
There will be products that support different versions (editions) and/or different errata levels of the specification after it becomes Recommendation. The requirements of this checkpoint ensure that users will be able to select and apply the appropriate test materials for a given product.
This checkpoint specifically extends the previous one to cover support for specification milestones after Recommendation status. As used in this checkpoint, the scope of "versions" at least includes "editions" -- editorial revisions that incorporate errata and small changes -- rather than major versions with major functional increments (i.e., new Recommendations).
Building specification versioning/errata support into the test materials' infrastructure is one effective technique. Other techniques may also suffice, such as reliance on a code versioning system like CVS (Concurrent Versions System).
A Working Group QA process encompasses all aspects of QA life within the Working Group, including:
Documented examples of the QA process can be found at DOM TS process, at XML Schema TS process, and at XML Protocol TS process.
Having a single person assume primary responsibility for the WG's quality practices will help ensure that its QA commitments and milestones are met efficiently and on schedule. A single identified QA point-of-contact will also optimize external QA-related communications.
The QA moderator is the overall manager of all of the QA activities in the Working Group, and (by default) principal point-of-contact. At even the lowest acceptable levels of QA commitment, there are sufficient requirements that at least part-time of one person is needed. Depending on the anticipated origin of the test materials, there are several possibilities for the QA moderator, ranging from appointing a WG member to inviting someone from an external organization.
At higher levels of QA commitment and deliverables, the resource requirements may exceed (part-time of) one person. Identifying and assigning any additional needed QA staff resources is a prerequisite to realistic schedules and QA delivery milestones.
Depending on the level of involvement of a Working Group in the test materials development, a task force assisting the QA moderator can take responsibility for a QA framework development, test materials development, review of contributions, and maintenance. In practice, the task force can range from a subset of dedicated individuals, to some fraction of the time of each WG member. The WG needs to ensure that the size of the task force is adequate to meet the committed QA deliverables and QA level, per the committed milestones.
A QA Process Document records, in one place, key information about the WG's quality-related logistical and communications setup, contribution and licensing policies, publication and maintenance plans, and other critical process and operational details. The production of this document ensures that these key aspects of the WG's quality practices are explicitly addressed and publicly recorded.
The main goal of a QA Process Document (QAPD) is a single starting place to find important QA information about the Working Group. A single document is preferred, and a template for writing such is included in Operational Examples & Techniques. A table of contents comprised of links to distributed WG documents would be another satisfactory way to satisfy the QAPD.
The QAPD may contain more, but it must address at least the requirements of these other checkpoints:
In practice, the mailing list may be a dedicated "test" mailing list, or something like an existing Interest Group mail list could be used for the purpose. A common convention for the QA-related Web page is recommended: name it /Test/ directly under the WG's home page, e.g., http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/.
This checkpoint is not applicable if the WG does not support branding.
Branding policy (like certification) is potentially one of the most contentious topics that a WG might face. If the WG opts to support branding, then defining the branding policy up front ensures that the WG undertakes test materials development (or acquisition) with a common understanding of their ultimate deployment and use. For end users, early definition of branding policy clarifies the WG intentions for a highly visible aspect of test materials' use.
Some W3C activities support "branding". Branding refers to the use of a conformance icon to indicate some level of conformance to the specification. Examples: HTML validation, CSS validation, WCAG conformance. While these content branding schemes are relatively non-controversial, there are nevertheless issues that should be addressed -- particularly in the contexts of user-agent and API conformance -- before any branding-related goals are articulated.
A Working Group may have different levels of involvement in test materials development. Nevertheless at any level a Working Group needs a clear understanding of what development framework it will use for its test materials, and how to insure the quality and usability of the test materials themselves. Before starting a test materials development, it is also recommended the test materials developer (Working Group or third party) looks at Test Guidelines and decides what approach to take for test materials organization, test criteria, etc.
A test materials development framework is effectively the top-level plan for test materials production. A sound top-level plan enables the accurate allocation and application of staffing and logistical resources, and the efficient production of quality deliverables that work as intended.
While consideration of a test materials framework might seem to be a detail that belongs only in QA Framework: Test Guidelines [QAF-TEST], in fact such a framework has potential impacts on a WG's operations, processes, staffing, and logistics, and therefore its consideration in the QA Process Document is appropriate.
Documentation should be thorough enough that entities unrelated to the test materials' developers -- such as external certification services -- can fully and effectively use the test materials.
Clear and simple directions for how and to whom to submit materials encourages outside contributions. Explicit instructions on formats and other technical details enables the WG to build processes and procedures for the efficient processing of contributions.
The process document must describe where to submit test materials and whom to notify (e.g., moderator) of a submission. The contribution process describes the format of contributed material, and may contain validation harness, utilities that facilitates tests creation, templates, etc. A well defined submission process is applicable to both internal and external contributors of test materials.
Defining submission license policies in advance will help clarify the WG's expectations to prospective TM submitters, and will facilitate the efficient negotiation of any needed custom submission licenses with submitters.
Unless exempted by custom submission terms with W3C Director's approval, a WG's submission license policies will necessarily conform to standard W3C policies for submitted materials, and specifically those procedures and terms defined in Contribution of Software or Test Materials to W3C [CONTRIB].
A well-defined and objective review procedure expedites the processing of contributions, and facilitates quick and impartial decisions about their disposition.
These procedures are a follow-on and complement to the contribution process that WGs must define. They should at least include criteria for acceptance or rejection of reviewed tests.
Once the test materials (TM) development is in progress, a Working Group needs to publish the TM drafts and releases, as part of its QA processes.
When the test materials have reached some advanced milestone of maturity and development (e.g., operationally usable), W3C needs to ensure that:
Meeting the needs of TM publication necessarily involves some aspects of TM management, such as repository. These prerequisite aspects are addressed in the following checkpoints, as well as publication details proper.
This checkpoint does not necessarily require that test materials should physically reside in the W3C. Nevertheless, having the repository at W3C is a recommended way of meeting the checkpoint, because:
It is implicit in the "secure" criterion of this checkpoint that, if the Working Group ceases to operate, then the repository arrangements must provide for the continued availability of the test materials.
Any W3C-hosted materials must have approved license and use terms. Because there is no single license that is appropriate for all test materials, the WG needs consider the options, select or define a best license for its particular test materials, and clearly inform potential users.
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 valuable to test materials:
However, there are situations in which the Document License is inappropriate, because (for example) some Test Materials require modification or completion in order to apply them.
Test Materials may contain any of these three components: test software, test documentation, and test cases. It is possible and sometimes desirable that the WG apply different licenses to different components. If the WG considers that neither the Document nor the Software License is applicable, it should consult with W3C Legal.
If the test materials are to be published on the W3C site, it is recommended to locate them within the corresponding activity domain. It is strongly recommended not to publish test materials in the TR space for the following reasons:
It is recommended to use one of the practices for publishing test materials, described in Test Guidelines.
It is common to draw unwarranted conclusions about conformance to the specification from test suite results. A conformance disclaimer clarifies the relationship between test suite results and conformance.
The central principle that a conformance disclaimer for test materials needs to clarify for users of the test materials and consumers of test results is this: passing all tests of the test materials does not guarantee or imply full conformance of an implementation to the specification.
Conformance testing events and publishing test results for implementations promotes interoperability and is helpful to users and vendors alike.
Taking responsibility to publish test results for vendors' products could be a problem for the Working Group. One way to address the problem is for the Working Group to encourage vendors themselves to publish their test results. Such publication should include or describe a test harness that allows reproduction of the results. The Working Group may want to provide the web space to publish collected results.
A prior checkpoint about test materials repository (Checkpoint 5.2) recommends that test materials reside in the W3C. If test development was done outside by some external entity or group (EG), and the Working Group (WG) together with EG decided to move test materials (TM) to W3C, the following checkpoints define requirements for the transfer process.
Some aspects of the transfer of a whole test suite from outside W3C parallel aspects of in-house planning and development, and piecemeal contribution and review. Those considering such transfers might not already have the planning, development, and submission infrastructure in place. Previous transfer experiences have shown that it is useful to isolate and collect those aspects in one place, as this guideline does.
None of the checkpoints of this guideline are applicable if the Working Group does not transfer test materials from an external entity.
This checkpoint is not applicable if the Working Group does not transfer test materials from an external entity.
The details of any quality assessment are necessarily TM-specific -- it depends the scope & goals of the TM, the type of TM (think "taxonomy"), etc. However, desirable components of a quality assessment would for example include attributes such as clarity of scope, traceability, atomicity, user documentation, etc.
This checkpoint is not applicable if the Working Group does not transfer test materials from an external entity.
The WG needs to take care that the amount of staff resources is adequate to meet needs of ongoing development and maintenance of the transferred test materials.
This checkpoint is not applicable if the Working Group does not transfer test materials from an external entity.
Completion of suitable IPR agreements for any transferred test materials, before the transfer is actually completed, will ensure that the WG can publish and the public can use the test test materials according terms and conditions planned and envisioned by the WG.
The ongoing maintenance of test materials is critical to their long term integrity, and may require a significant commitment of resources. The checkpoints of this guideline address planning and resource commitment requirements to ensure that proper specification tracking happens, and that maintenance and update procedures are provided for.
If the Working Group is not re-chartered, then it is problematic where the resources will come from. In this case, it is up to the Director to determine how the work should be done. Some options include:
It is implicit in the criteria of this checkpoint that, if the Working Group ceases to operate, then the WG's maintenance plan must survive and address the ongoing maintenance of the contribution and review procedures.
Defining tracking procedures for specification versions/errata will help to ensure that all needed versions of test materials are available. This is critical to product version tracking of specification versions. It enables products' users to better assess the quality and conformance of the individual product versions.
As used in this checkpoint, the scope of "versions" at least includes "editions" -- editorial revisions that incorporate errata and small changes -- rather than major versions with major functional increments.
A well-defined and deterministic procedure for handling challenges will expedite the resolution of challenges, and is critical to their defensibility and acceptance.
Such a procedure is applicable both to external challenges once test materials have been published, as well as to internal challenges during the building of test materials.