W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Draft Minutes for 2002-07-31 telcon

From: by way of Karl Dubost <andrew@opengroup.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 09:00:24 -0400
Message-Id: <a05111b2db96ee13d8906@[]>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

  Dear QA colleagues,
  Here are the draft minutes for the telcon on Wednesday 31 July 2002

  My brain's voice recognition s/ware is buggy so please check that I 
have attributed
  comments correctly. I think I may have confused Karl and Dom in some
  cases - sorry!


QA Working Group Teleconference
Wednesday, 31-July-2002
Scribe: [Andrew Thackrah]

(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

Absent: None

Summary of New Action Items:

A-2002-07-31-1: DH to investigate web requirements (eg CGI) to handle 
questionaire form

A-2002-07-31-2: KD to send feedback request message to team contacts

A-2002-07-31-3: LH to send feedback request message to chairs list

A-2002-07-31-4: KD to choose the review subject for any QAWG members 
who have not already chosen a subject

A-2002-07-31-5: LH to ask David Marston if he would like to carry out a review


Previous Telcon Minutes:

Minutes: 2) Logistical topics

LH: About the Tokyo face-to-face meeting. See agenda link [0] for 
preliminary     information. About the hotel: it is clean and cheap. 
The meeting is     definite. Airfares have dropped in the last month 
by 30-40%

KD/DH?: The hotel is very good. It is convenient for the train and 
practical for         exploring the city.

3) doc-tech questionaire

LH: Regarding the call for comments on the questionaire ( agenda link 
[1]). There have been     no further comments. I think we should not 
wait for further comments. We should     go ahead and use it now. 
It's important to get this in use - it is a prerequisite     for our 
goal of prototyping a test assertion markup language.

     It needs an introduction.

DD: yes, it does need an intro.

LH: Apart from the lack of an introduction, one thing is missing: how 
do we get feedback?
     Should we use team contacts? (they could deliver to WG editors 
for dispersal among members).     Or do we invite feedback direct to 
the QAWG list? Or direct to Dimitris for further editing?

KD: In Montreal we agreed to make a web-based form for people to 
submit feedback

DH: We need the cgi scrips to process this. There maybe some 
materials available already.
     [Action Item for DH to investigate this]

DD: Can we make this (quasi)mandatory? Chair AND team contacts should 
be approached

KD: agreed - ask both chair and team contacts.

DD: The response should only take ~5 minutes to complete

[Action Item for Karl to approach team contacts]
[Action Item for Lofton to approach group chairs list]

DD: Shall we set the due date for final text as August 15?

DH: This date is ok for me

DD: A one month deadline for groups to respond after we publish 
should be enough.
     We should use strong wording to encourage a response.

LH: Agreed, though we can't mandate it because members are volunteers.

4) Review Assignments

DD: I have to leave now. Please assign a review for me.

LH: review matrix is more empty than full despite calls for 
volunteers. maybe we should     volunteer people to fill the gaps?

KD: Can we have a roll call now to see who has chosen yet?

LH: Karl has some blanks
     Dom has some blanks
     What about David? should he be included?

KD: Can we select different groups for each review?

LH: Yes, but it may help to use the same groups

KD: Should we review ourselves?

LH: Good idea

KD: OK I'll volunteer to review QA

KD: The person doing the review should understand the topic of the 
spec if possible

LH: Yes. For me CSS was harder than SVG because I had less knowledge

KD: I propose that we ask people to choose by next week. And if they 
don't then     a group is selected for them.

DH: In that case we should give the person a week to appeal

SM: What is the 'tdb' in the review matrix?

LH: 'tbd' represents the date for completion. You must pick a date as 
well as a group.     But we don't want all dates to coincide. We want 
to stagger them over major document     versions.     But I would 
like some feedback on the current version - in the next two weeks.

SM: Will send URL for XML

DH: Andrew has chosen HTML but there are many documents within that 
area - what should he do?

AT: I'm interested in modularization

KD: I recommend a joint review of Modularization and XHTML 1.1

AT: OK, I'll do that

[Action Item for KD to choose review subjects for people who have not 
yet chosen]

[Action Item for LH to ask David if he wants to participate in the 
review exercise]

LH: The review matrix needs a 4th column with title 'Techniques 
assessment for a GL document'

DH: Done - looks OK

JM: Can we link the completed reviews - this would be helpful

LH: OK, but they still need cleaning up before publishing so I can't 
do it immediately

5) Spec Guidelines document

LH: In Montreal we decided that we would publish an interim version 
in August     (before the major October publication date) because of 
the extra interest and     resulting reorganisation of the document. 
We should aim to publish in week 2 or     3 of August so we must 
resolve the content in the next two weeks. We have one regular 
telcon and if necessary we can have an extra telcon.     So we have a 
deadline to finalize majpr content details by (say) August 14.

     We have one major thing missing: a checkpoint-by-checkpoint 
priority review     So next week we have to complete/endorse 

     Then, after publication Lynne will take back ownership.

AT: Is the deadline realistic?

LH: what do people think?

AT: Yes with the caveat that we sort out the distinction between 
levels,     modules and profiles.  I'm confused by this and I think 
spec authors will be too.

LH: Yes, we have inherited a choatic legacy from the W3C specs. But 
it's     starting to converge. We have to address the reality of what 
W3C has produced     and what our ideal is.

SM: I agree with Andrew. Reviews can help here also. We need 1 or 2 
more reviews for this     version. [SM leaves]

LH: This does seem to be a significant issue

KD: It would be better if we have more input from editors

LH: Should we postpone your (Karl's) issues discussion today?

KD: let's put it to the end of the agenda

LH: So is SpecGL close enough given that we only have 2 weeks?

KD: It has good features but sometimes as an editor who will have to 
use it I     think that it will be difficult to implement. We should 
have a manual!     As an editor I may not be sure whether I am 
supposed to use a feature or not.

JM: Based on past experience I think we will need that extra telcon

LH: Yes, probably. We could manage 3 telcons in August: 6th, 13th, 
21st? - that     leaves 10 days in the month for editing.

KD: Should ExTech be published at the same time? This may be 
difficult because     it requires a stable SpecGL.

LH: No problem there, ExTEch can wait.

KD: yes - wait for SpecGL stablity

[Discussion of KD's SpecGL comments follows]

KD: #1 Define what we mean by a table of content entry - where does 
it lie?, what form? etc
       Sometimes it if not clear if text should be included in the 
ToC. Should work with       Susan Lesch on this.

LH: Have you seen the new draft - I tried to reflect last week's 
comments about     that in checkpoint 3.2, 3.4 etc - by adding a 'not 
applicable' qualifier.
     A spec must say something about profiles for example so that 
should always have an entry

    The actual wording tries to address Karl's issue. Karl - is this 
sufficient for the next    public draft?

KD: Seems fine - but in XHTML for example sometimes the ToC does not 
contain all links. It's     possible to have an entry on one page 
that is not in the ToC.

    [looking at XHTML 1.0, comparing sections with ToC - this example 
challenges the     ToC definition]

LH: Given the new text do we need to go further?

KD: It's better

LH: Look at (SpecGL 2002/07/29) GL 8, ckpt 8.5 - are these detailed 
enough for the next draft?

KD: I will it review it later today - seems to be ok

[ LH invites everyone to see if the vatious ToC-related checkpoints 
are suitable for publication    in the next draft version ]

KD: #2 Clarify modules and levels

LH: Sandra and Andrew also flagged this - we should deal with this by email

KD: #3 ?? [KD comment not recorded]

LH: In GL 3, 4 and 7 - have put a 'not applicable' qualifier (except 
on ToC checkpoints) KD: Fine, this addresses my comment

KD: #4 When people start a new technology - I don't know if they will 
be considering     levels at the start.

LH: Checkpoint 7.1 tries to capture this


LH: See David Marton's email about mods and levels

     One case is a high precision level and low precision level 
designed in from the     start. Don't think we have an example of 
this in W3C?

KD: What, a first edition of a standard that defines levels? Not sure.

DH: DOM level 1 - this appeared just before PR version, but not in 
the first working draft

LH: CSS didn't predict levels either.     So, is Checkpoint 7.1 ok for now

KD: I will review it and confirm

LH: Generally, we have to clarify levels/modules/profiles
         Next meeting is next Wednesday, on the regular schedule. We 
can also expect an extra     telcon to discuss the current draft of 

Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 09:00:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:28 UTC