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

Final Minutes - QAWG Telcon 10-28-02

From: Peter Fawcett <pfawcett@real.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:59:13 -0800
Message-Id: <a05111b00b9f9b0c6cb66@[172.23.106.41]>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 28-October-2002
--
Scribe: Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)

Attendees:
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft) (late)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun) - permanent regret
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Guest:
(DM) David Marston

Regrets:
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)

Absent: None

Summary of New Action Items:
A-2002-10-28-1: Peter to write up definitions of withdrawn and 
deprecated. 11/4/02.
A-2002-10-28-2: Andrew to clean up language of Guideline 1, 2nd 
paragraph. 11/4/02.
A-2002-10-28-3: Lynn to draft language on single TOC section. 11/6/02.
A-2002-10-28-4: David to look at Guideline 6, work on language. 
Address triple @'s. 11/2/02
A-2002-10-28-5: Mark - Change language on reference to ICS so that it 
must be referenced or
	there must be language as to why it is not applicable.

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Oct/0133.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Oct/0125.html

Minutes:

1.) roll call


2.) SpecGL miscellaneous
          - any problems w/ issue clarifications [1], [2]
          - is Issue #51 closed (de facto)?
          - etc

No objections to clarifications of issues list have been raised.
This has been closed.

Issue 51 has been affectively withdrawn.
	- need definitions of withdrawn/deprecated.
	but. SG now does address such features. Can we declare closed 
and point to
	the resolution.
	- Yes, consider closed but add definitions

A-2002-10-28-1: Action item for Peter - definitions of 
withdrawn/deprecated. Work with Lynne on language.
	Guideline 7 has language on deprecated.
	Due: 11/4/02.


3.) Spec Guidelines new drafts [3], [4]
          - new Intro -- overview/general comments?
          - issues highlighted in LR, DHM email [5], [6]
          - visit/discuss other "@@@" issue points

Spec Guidelines new drafts:
Go through triple '@'s that need explanation/discussion.

A-2002-10-28-2: Action Item to Andrew Clean up language of Guideline 
1 2nd paragraph with Lynne.
	Due 11/4/02..

Lofton had combined language from Lynne and Andrew on cases and systems.


3.1 - Must include Table of contents.

Lofton - no matter how you divide up a document you need to provide 
an easy way to navigate
the document and find information.

Lynne - Can all these toc guildlines be combined into one.

David - There needs to be a way to navigate to conformance 
information with out having to
simply read the document.

A-2002-10-28-3: Action Item to Lynne to draft language on single TOC 
section rather than multiple as it is
now. Due 11/6/02


3.5 - what is a testable rule.

Should be resolved based on language else ware in the document.  See 
Lofton's mail to
list.

Rule should be replaced with requirements as we have definition of 
'testable requirement'

Lofton suggested (in mail) contradict or redefine instead of clash.


6.2 - Does the rational really justify the checkpoint

Lofton - bigger issue is that guideline 6 has become catch all of 
checkpoints on conformance
that dont fit elsewhere.

Based on Mail discussion between Lofton and David.

David to take a look at Guideline 6 (checkpoint 2 and 3).

A-2002-10-28-4: Action Item to David to look at Guideline 6, work on 
language. Address triple @'s.
11/2/02


12.1/12.2 - How can an ICS be normative, how.

Was discussed last week. The way this currently reads, it could be 
interpreted to mean that the
normative ics is only possible ics.

should be re-written to state minimal requirements for ics or to make 
it normative to have one.

A-2002-10-28-5: Action Item - Mark - Spec much include reference to 
ICS or include language as to why it is not
applicable.

14.1 - Test Assertions:
Will take too long...

1.3 - Make this statement stronger?

Directive to Dom. We all agree, Yes... but how?

2.2 - Clarify language on "which is not a requirement' Needs to be 
clarified or removed. It
may have an intended purpose but no one is positive what was meant.

Mark - pre announces his regrets for next week.
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 14:59:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:11 GMT