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

Re: Minutes of QAWG/IG face-to-face meeting, Tokyo 8-10 october 2002

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:52:03 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org


At 11:01 AM 10/24/02 +0900, you wrote:

>QA Working Group and Interest Group participants.
>Here are the minutes for the last face-to-face meeting:

These are extraordinarily good!  I'm afraid that you have raised the bar 
too high, and only you will be able to live up to this quality level in the 
future!  [Coming to Seattle?  ;-) ]

>The document is still under discussion and review by participants of the 
>meeting, therefore some clarifications/additions are likely to be done. In 
>such case, I will inform the list.

We have sorted out issue #91 a bit:


Here is what we agreed was discussed, what was decided, and what was not 
decided at Tokyo (made complex by at least two issues getting entwined in 
the discussion):

==== start Issues List excerpt =====
Discussed at Tokyo face-to-face, closed with resolution: replace "items" 
with "choices" in statement of checkpoint; and, implementations must do the 
same things in the same conditions. Further details of Tokyo discussion: 
Checkpoint addresses specifically discretionary choices - e.g., choice one 
of a,b,c - not discretionary items in general. Users should be able to 
count on getting the same thing under same conditions. If conditions have 
changed, then maybe you're not going to get same behavior - may not always 
be possible to have the same conditions - e.g., cache changes, network 
changes (recognize that requirement might be useless in some environments.) 
There is a possible inter-related issue which is not addressed by this 
resolution: consistent treatment of groups of discretionary choices. If "A 
or B" is a discretionary choice applicable to several different 
circumstances within the specification -- e.g., two possible responses to a 
collection of several different error conditions -- then should 
specifications treat these consistently as a group.

Resolution: Keep CK8.4; replace "items" with "choices" in statement of 
checkpoint; and, specifications must state that given identical conditions, 
the effect of a discretionary choice is consistent within a single 
===== end =====

What is different:

1.) in place of an action item on Lynne (current minutes), we have 
extracted and stated what we believe was the Tokyo-agreed resolution.  I 
emphasize that we think the newly stated "resolution" is in fact what we 
agreed at Tokyo, not a change to it.

2.) we have tried to clarify the record of the messy threads of the discussion.

I will leave it to your discretion and the WG's, whether to amend the 
minutes.  IMO, the above stuff after "Further details of Tokyo discussion" 
could replace the current minutes' "Discussion"; and the above-stated 
"Resolution" could be appended after the simple "Closed" in the minutes.

Received on Thursday, 24 October 2002 18:52:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:28 UTC