W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Minutes QA WG F2F 20030107, afternoon [FINAL]

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:14:18 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030117085027.03368ba0@rockynet.com>
To: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 06:36 AM 1/17/03 +0100, Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote:
>[...]
>Having received no comments on these minutes, they should be considered final

(...except once Olivier assembles them all together, he has typically been 
offering them the consolidated minutes for review/comment.)

I do have a question and would like clarification (anyone?) on an apparent 
action item of mine...

>[...]Summary of New Action Items:
>Action item on Lofton to provide new checkpoint for Testable Assertions
>Action item: Editors must reread the document and introduce consistent 
>useage of "strict conformance"
>Action item on editors to check that each DoV has a checkpoint about 
>relationship with other DoV
>
>[...]
>(LH) should we create a new checkpoint for TA? Change "to fulfil" into 
>"conformance requirements". Change the title of guideline 13 into 
>something like "identify all conformance criteria".
>
>(all) agreed.
>
>Action item on Lofton to do so.

What was recorded in the AI list (and already done by me, on 20020112) is:

"AI-20030107-5 Lofton Change the title of guideline 13 into something like 
"identify all conformance criteria" 2003-01-10"

I need help remembering about "new checkpoint for Testable Assertions" 
(note, "test" not "testable").  Can someone refresh my memory, what  this 
was about?

One thing I do remember.  There was discussion of David's proposal 
[1]  (unresolved, prior to Seattle) that GL3 needed a catch-all ckpt that 
requires explicit statement of any miscellaneous conformance rules or rules 
of interpretation that WGs might be (implicitly) using:  "If any general 
rules of interpretation are intended, they must be stated explicitly."

I remember noting that if we recast GL13 as suggested (in AI-20030107-5), 
then such a checkpoint as David suggested might naturally fit as a new 
CP13.5.  (We did agree to the GL13 revision, but I don't remember what we 
did about David's suggested checkpoint and the idea of adding it to the 
reshaped GL13.)

Is this what we are talking about?

-Lofton.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/0016.html
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 11:11:56 GMT

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