W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > September 2004

Re: [meeting] notes from 2004-09-28

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:38:43 +0200
To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <418bb2bb.657628629@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Terje Bless wrote:
>>* Usage of Bugzilla

>Suggested improvements?
>
>For much of WMVS, I'm the default owner simply because it used to be that, in
>practice, I was responsible for it (in every role; QA, owner, etc.); but this
>may no longer accurately reflect reality. Perhaps www-validator-cvs should be
>the default owner and Olivier the QA Contact?

"Accept bug" should mean "I am working on this, expect results soon"
not "I agree that this is a bug, someone should work on it one day".
Bugzilla would ideally provide a simple means to enable contributors
to quickly figure out where they should invest their time, if people
read "assigned" as suggested above they would just ignore it.

>Make sure they use fonts which can be embedded in the SVG. This lets us strip
>the glyphs down to only those we need for the specific badge, and won't run us
>into trouble with what fonts people have installed.

We could also have [A-Za-z0-9./ -] in one SVG document and reference
it from other graphics. Stripping SVG fonts to that extend would make
sense only if there is a tool that does it automatically.

>If anyone wants to make sure a particular bug, currently blocking #856, gets
>adressed for 0.7.0 then make sure you make a note to that effect on the
>specific bug (possibly even changing its severity to "blocker"); otherwise
>I'll unilaterally remove the blocker on my own judgement.

A severity of "blocker" means to me something to the effect of "OH MY
GOODNESS, WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON, THIS MUST BE FIXED BY LAST WEEK,
DO NOT DO ANYTHING BUT WORK ON THIS BUG !!!!11" so that would be a bad
idea from my perspective. I also disagree with the 0.8.0 setting, see
my other message. 

>   I think this is necessary, even when we all seem to be talking past
>   eacheother, because to finally deliver a good product we need to develop
>   a common understanding (call it “vision” if you like) of architecture
>   and implementation details.

I am +1 on a Vision and Scope Document for the Validator for both the
feature set as well as architecture details, as for more requirmements
engineering for the Validator in general. For M12N in particular we
should establish some principles soonish, since in-depth detailed
discussions on every change would probably rather block progress than
help, much of m12n will be in the hands of those who actually do it.

>I'd rather people spent time on going over the sgml.soc, xml.soc, and the DTDs
>present and missing. This stuff is a _mess_ after I cleaned out some of the
>old cruft (long overdue), but not all of it, and nuked a few things I should
>have kept. We're currently missing MathML, SVG, SMIL and similar; and the
>sgml-lib is not necessarily in sync with the relevant config file.

It would be useful if you (or someone else) could produce documentation
on which DTDs will be included in the sgml-lib as a general principle.
It should answer questions such as whether we include DTDs from W3C
Working Drafts or proprietary DTDs from particular vendors. It would
also be good if someone could do whatever necessary to wipe out empty
directories from the CVS tree, e.g. there is a dir for WD-html40-970917
which does not contain anything, which makes browsing the rep difficult.
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2004 13:39:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:44 GMT