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

Re: Darft Minutes for QAWG Telcon Wed. 16 October 2002

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:47:37 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021023122535.03939300@rockynet.com>
To: andrew@opengroup.org
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Andrew,

I have a couple of small comments.

If you get none others by CoB today (in North America), I suggest that you 
make these final -- one week has elapsed since the meeting, and CoB today 
will mark 3 full days for review.

At 11:39 AM 10/21/02 +0100, you wrote:
>[...]
>Summary of New Action Items:
>
>A-2002-10-16-1: LH to start email discussion about possible presentation 
>material                                       for outreach to other groups.

Please insert after "about":  "tech plenary and"

See below for AI-2002-10-16-2.


>Agenda:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Oct/0054.html
>
>Previous Telcon Minutes:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Oct/0074.html

Since f2f immediately preceded this telecon, I suggest to link to it also:

Preceding F2F Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/10/f2f-minutes

>[...]
>LH: This affects whether one can have test cases or not. Groups maintain 
>errata lists -         they don't become normative until new doc is 
>published. Tying test to errata levels needs       to be looked at more 
>carefully since we are going be tying them to errata levels.
>         Also seems to downplay the barrier to republishing a TR (every 
> 3/6 months?). The review         processes are fairly light. Editors with 
> heavy workloads are not going to view this as  a small activity - to 
> republish. The errata doc considers carefully implications of 
> what        should be normative. It gets into the question of what is 
> normative/what not - how you  package things, where they reside - this 
> can be a major determinant of if whether something     is normative or not.
>         @@@ Lofton Please check this - I may have mangled it slightly in 
> the write-up

At the end, I may have been referring to the fact that it has to be in /TR/ 
in order to be normative, and republication w/ merged approved errata is a 
way to do that.  So might be clearer to replace:

"It gets into the question of what is normative/what not - how you package 
things, where they reside - this can be a major determinant of if whether 
something is normative or not."

with

"It points out that errata, like anything else, must be in /TR/ to be 
normative.  And from that, recommends republication of the whole spec, with 
approved errata folded in, as the way to finally make them normative."


>[...]
>LH:     I called it a definition section so would it challenge QA glossary 
>(@@@ May have got this wrong).

"...so it would *not* be confused with or challenge the QA Glossary."

>[...]
>
>KG: I prefer per-document definitions.   LH: Can we take discussion on to 
>the IG list?
>   MS: On IG list - let's not use Test Assertion as the working example- 
> too controversial. We need      another example.

I think that I got an AI here:

AI-2002-10-16-2:  LH to start discussion on IG list of last bit of Issue 
19, per-document definitions (supplemental to and starting from  QA 
Glossary definition.)

(Due date for AI list:  I would like to be after publication -- 
2002-10-13?.  We (all) have enough to do before.)

-Lofton.
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 14:47:32 GMT

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