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

Draft telcon minutes

From: Sandra Martinez <sandra.martinez@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:50:12 -0400
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20021022093634.01e16bd0@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

The following are the draft minutes for the Monday, October 21 
telcon.  Please review and send comments by Thursday. I will like to send 
out the final minutes prior to the next telcon.

Cordially,
Sandra

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 21-October-2002
--
Scribe: Sandra I. Martinez

Attendees:
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)-
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(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)
(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)-permanet regret
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Regrets: None

Absent: None


Summary of New Action Items:

A-2002-10-21-1: Kirill to send license information to Lofton.
A-2002-10-21-2: Lofton to discuss the license with Joseph Reagle.
A-2002-10-21-3: Lofton to get concrete proposal for issue 59 for next telecon.
A-2002-10-21-4: Mark and Lynne to work on issue 93. Guideline 9 and 
checkpoints.


Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Oct/0101.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Oct/0096.html

Minutes:

1.) roll call


2.) OpsGL issues (LH) [0]
         -- at least #60, #59
         -- maybe #32 (probably not)


Issue 60 -- What are the QA commitments and responsibilities of existing 
Working Groups?
             Lofton proposed option 4; to remove "In the charter" from 
statement of GDs and CKs, add treatment new/old of to
             conditional test requirements within CKs (and discuss in 
Extech). They are applicable to every one.
             Everyone agreed on implementation of option 4. Issue is 
resolved per option 4. Next public draft of
             Ops Guidelines will reflect changes.

Issue 59 - postpone until next week. Lofton will draft proposal to be 
discussed in the next telcon.

Issue 49 -- Should there be a global (W3C-standard) license for use and 
distribution of test materials?
             This issue is relevant to test and Ops Gl. Issue was closed 
with Kirill contribution (distributed paper form at Montreal).
             Kirill will send electronic copy to Lofton.  Lofton will 
discuss the license with Joseph Reagle.


3.) SpecGL stuff (DHM), probably one or more of:
         -- see Friday emails from Dom in archive [1]
         -- new SpecGL draft [2]
         -- draft proposed Intro [3]

Dom - Before starting the SpecGL issues, he stated that the DOV discussion 
raised in an email thread would not be included in the Nov 6 version of the 
document.  DoV discussion should continue via email and perhaps in a later 
telcon.

Issue 93: Why register extensions?

         Dom:  not sure why we need to go into so much detail, there is too 
many constraints on extensions. Asking for more clarification on this issue 
and what are the benefits.  Lofton - Lynne wrote this section. Guideline 
9.  This came up in a comment on an IRC thread during the summer. Ckpt. 
only applies to some kind of specifications in a limited context. Mark was 
not clear about the objection. Dom answered by asking what are the benefits 
for having the extensions.
Mark volunteered to work on it with Lynne. Lofton wants to make sure 9.3 
will no go away. Mark and Lynne will revisit guideline 9 and the 
checkpoints and provide appropriate redraft.

Ckpt. 10.2: "Make normative reference to specifications on which the 
current specification depends" What do we mean by dependence? Isn't 
normative reference the only way to set up dependence any way?

         Dom suggested to keep checkpoint as is but to define more 
precisely what we mean with "dependence". Lynne will clarify the definition 
of "dependence". She was thinking alone the line that a specification might 
need another technology in order to work correctly.


Ckpt.  10.3: Follow Web Accessibility Initiative and Internationalization 
Guidelines." Do we really want to get on the business to make other GL 
apply?  Is this within the scope of the SpecGL?

         This particular checkpoint is mentioned in the introduction 
section of the SpecGL. Lynne recommended the deletion of this checkpoint 
and the modification of the introduction section to include more 
information in this particular area.  Editors will draft appropriate text 
for the introduction.

         Deviations from the agenda; Dom, asked for comments in the 
introduction section of the SpecGL. Lynne, requested the WG to send 
comments on the introduction section. Lofton added that the group should 
also look at the @@ in the SpecGL by midweek.  He commented that in the 
process of rewriting the SpecGL, guidelines 14 is collapsing with GL-15, 
therefore removing the granular grammar related checkpoints. The 
relationship between automatic generation and granular grammar is lost. 
Loftton move the information related to granular grammar to an appendix so 
it would not be lost. Dimitris volunteered to generate appropriate writing 
on the subject.

Ckpt. 12.1: "If an ICS is included as part of the specification, indicate 
whether it is a normative or informative part of the
specification." How an ICS can be normative? To what class of product would 
it apply?

Lofton agreed with Dom on the comment that ICS can't be normative. Lynne 
explained that the inclusion of an ICS is beneficial in claiming 
conformance especially for implementations that implement discretionary 
behaviors and values, for example  XSLT specification where many options 
and choices are allowed. DOM still not sure if the SpecGL should required 
ICS.  Lofton added that it is not within our scope to address conformance 
claim but that under some conditions it might be useful to have an ICS. 
Andrew stated that he sees it at the role of the certification organization 
to have the  ICS, so it would not belong in the SpecGL.  It was suggested 
the checkpoint to be moved to the TestGL. Kirill agreed.  Mark did not 
agree and added that requirements belong to the specification not to a test 
suite, and stated that the ICS does belong in the SpecGL. Lofton felt that 
this discussion was leading to reopening issue 96 and decided to take the 
discussion offline.

---
Adjourned
-- 



Sandra I. Martinez
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20899

(301) 975-3579
sandra.martinez@nist.gov
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2002 09:56:47 GMT

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