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

Draft Minutes QAWG telcon 4 Nov 2002

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 14:38:04 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Please note that last week's (28 Oct) final minutes have not been published 

QA Working Group Teleconference
Wednesday, 4-November August-2002
Scribe: Lynne

(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
  (DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
  (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
(DM) David Marston (guest)

(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)

  (JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)

Summary of New Action Items:
AI-20021104-1 Mark/Lynne to propose new text for ICS (CP 12.1)  5 Nov
AI-20021104-2 Lofton to modify Lynne’s TOC proposal  5 Nov
AI-20021104-3 Lofton to add an issue on navigation mechanisms must work in 
hardcopy versions.
AI-20021104-4 Lofton to add an issue on rewording DM’s proposed CP 6.5
AI-20021104-5 Peter to draft a new rationale for CP 3.1  4 Nov
AI-20021104-6 Lofton to add an issue on making CP 7.4 more generic to cover 
consumers and producers

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/0013.html
Previous Telcon Minutes:  Draft 


1.) roll call, membership

2.) OpsGL publication topic(s)
LH provided an explanation of changes made to OpsGL.  Basically, the 
document was reformatted to be similar to SpecGL and the CP wording was 
tighten, but remained basically the same with respect to its 
meaning.  There were no objections to using this version as the basis for 
publication on 8 Nov.

Request people look at the @@ and email comments.  These @@ items will be 
addressed after publication.

3.) Spec Guidelines
To be published: Nov 8.

Discussion of problems/issues.

CP 12.1 ICS checkpoint. This was discussed last week (28 Oct).  Mark and 
Lynne to draft clarification and send to DH by 5 Nov.

Issue 69, DoV excessive variability is bad. LH concerned that there is no 
longer a warning at the beginning of each DoV guideline.  The only warning 
that excessive variability is bad is only in the introduction.  DH said 
this was O.K., since it is addressed in other ways in each DoV Guideline.

TOC proposal.  Lynne sent a proposed new TOC checkpoint to take the place 
of all the current TOC checkpoints and to put this new CP in Guideline 
13.  Email responses from LH, DM, and Alex suggested that the CP needed to 
be more explicit.  LH suggests adding a minimal list of what needs to be 
addressed in the ‘To fulfill…’  DM also had suggestions of what to add.  LH 
to modify the proposal, including a list of minimal items. DH not sure we 
should go into that much detail about the navigation at this time.  DM 
suggest adding a requirement that you can find the information in the 
hardcopy rendition. LH to add issue that navigation mechanism must work in 
hardcopy versions.

G1.  Removed use case sentence as suggested by AT.

GL6 proposal.  LH seeks agreement that this is guideline is a catch-all and 
is what we want for the Guideline.  DM suggests moving the guideline to 
become guideline 3 and as guideline 3, the explanation is sufficient and we 
don’t need to say this is a catch-all guideline. LH thinks the proposed 
wording is too limiting.  DM submitted a new CP 6.5. It was agreed that GL6 
will be replaced with DM’s proposal and become guideline 3 (shifting the 
current GL by 1).  LH will open a new issue on rewording 6.5.

dd leaves.  (45 min. after meeting start)

CP 2.2:  LH does not understand what we are trying to say.  This is similar 
to negative disclaimer of DoV.  Either remove sentence or clarify what we 
mean.  DH  suggests remove it.  Agreed.

CP 3.1 Peter agreed to draft a new Rationale and email it today.

CP 7.2  Lynne submitted new CP text.  DM wasn’t clear on whether the new 
text was intended to be the whole CP or just a substitute for the first 
half of the CP.  LR said, the whole CP and that the details, including the 
specifying the conformance consequences is in the ‘To fulfill…”  DH apply 
the proposal to the document

CP 7.4 Applicability of CP to class of product
DH questions whether this CP applies just to producers and not consumers. 
Discussion by LH, DM, and PF indicating they think it would also apply to 
consumers. A SMIL example was give.   PF will send comments later today, 
regarding how this can apply to consumers.  Getting back to what this CP 
actually says, DH asks if it is O.K. to have a CP that addresses mainly 
producers.  Does there also need to be a parallel CP for consumers?  DH 
prefers a CP that captures both consumers and producers.  LH to add an 
issue on making CP 7.4 more generic.

LH  suggest next time, we should cover issues in backwards order, since we 
always run out of time before we finish the list.  In particular, he wanted 
to discuss guideline 9, on which he previously sent comments. He will 
continue the discussion via email.

Adjourn 5 minutes after the hour.
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 14:44:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:29 UTC