Final Minutes of 18 December 2002 QAWG Teleconference

QA Working Group Teleconference
Wednesday, December 18 2002
--
Scribe: Peter Fawcett

Attendees:
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) - left early
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(DM) David Marston - arrived late

Arriving late:
David

Regrets:
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)

Absent:
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)

Summary of New Action Items:
AI-2002-1218-1 Lofton to open new issue, is strict conformance limited
	to extensions only or does it also include other discressionary items.
AI-2002-1218-2 Dom to formulate text of issue on checkpoint 3.3, what
	is it's intent, and send it to Lofton to post to issues list.
AI-2002-1218-3 Lofton to open new issue concerning navigation links in
	hard copy of specs. To be dealt with in Seattle.
AI-2002-1218-4

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Dec/0088.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Dec/0110.html

Minutes:

Spec GL Review:

Guideline 1, checkpoint 1.3/1.4

Lynne proposes merging Checkpoint 1.3 and Checkpoint 1.4.
Make it priority 2, with Must language. Language from 1.3 that says should
provide an example... will become Must provide and become part of 1.4

Guideline 9, checkpoint 9.1/9.2 / Issue 106

Relating to issue 106, should checkpoint 9.1 and 9.2 be combined.

Lofton points out that we need to be careful and ensure that all
information in both checkpoints gets included.

Lynne asked if there are any objections to using language from issue 106.

No objections.

Dom may not have time to make edits this week.

Lynne will make edits.

Issue 106 is also resolved by this decision.

Lofton mentions that there are similarities between 9.1/9.2 and checkpoint
and 3.2. Not sure if this includes everything, discressionary
items/extensions.

Action item to Lofton to open new issue, is strict conformance limited to
extensions only or also includes discressionary items.


Dimitris Has to leave the call
David has arrived in the call.

An aside about posting new SpecGL. How soon.
And what version reviews should use, posted or draft.
Lofton: Reviews should use latest version of guidelines.

Checkpoint 3.3

Dom commented when doing review that checkpoint 3.3 is really obscure.
Lynne agrees.

David notes that for example extensions could be required but what those
extensions are isn't defined in the spec.

Lynne proposes that we leave it this way but that we deal with it at
Seattle F2F.

Issue on checkpoint 3.3 about, what does this mean, why is it
here.

Action item to Dom to formulate issue and send it to list.

Checkpoint 13.4 / Issue 103:

What are the fulfillment criteria for this checkpoint.

David found from spec review, there needs to be some measurable requirement.
That by starting at the table of contents, there should be a way to 
move to various
information with out moving through the bulk of the document.

David proposes idea of TOC that links to conformance section that then can
link to specific conformance information. Should there be a second checkpoint
along these lines?

Dom suggests another approach, have checkpoint that specifies that there be
a conformance section and that the conformance section must have all the
stuff in 13.4 and have it all easily accessible.
Merge parts of 13.4 with 10.2

The conformance section can be linked to from the TOC.

There was discussion about this before but there was issues with priority
levels. Is both 10.1 and 10.2 needed, what is the use of a conformance clause
with out a conformance section.

10.2/10.1 is related.
10.1 should be possibly removed and 10.2 should be merged with 1

Lynne recaps:
10.1 will be removed.
10.2 will be made priority 1
13.4 will be kept the same.
add 13.5 checkpoint that states that all conformance info must be lined
from the conformance section.

David, points out that 13.4 still says locate, Does this mean that it must
be easily found with out having to read the document. Yes.

Do we really need a new checkpoint or does 13.4 need to be
re-organized/re-written.
Do we need a new checkpoint, no.

Can we reword 13.4 so that it says what we really mean.

Lynne proposes something along the lines of having the bulleted info be in the
conformance section and if not in the section, then it must be linked to, or
easily referenced, from the conformance section.

David will write up language if he gets a chance by friday hopefully.

Recap again:
10.1 removed.
10.2 renamed 10.1 and made priory 1
13.4 will be reworded with new language from David. Left as priory 2 for now.

Issue 103 is closed.

Tabled question from lofton: David had previously stated that navigation
should also be navigatable in hard copy.

Dom says that that level of detail should be in ex tech.

Manual of style deals with this same idea for links but it's not required
behavior.

Action item to Lofton to que issue about navigation in hard copy do deal
with in Seattle.

Lynne proposes that if we say yes, this should be a new checkpoint.

Can we live with the rest of the issues till Seattle. Yes.

End of telcon.

Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2002 15:03:32 UTC