QA Working Group F2F Tuesday, 8 January 2003 Morning -- Scribe: Karl Dubost Attendees: (dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair) (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks) (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft) (DH) Dominique Haza‘l-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster) (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair) (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair) (MS) Mark Skall (NIST) (OT) Olivier ThŽreaux (W3C) (DM) David Marston () - phone Regrets: (JR) JohnRobert Gardner (Sun) (SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST) (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group) Summary of New Action Items: - AI-20030122-01 Kirill Editors (Kirill, Dimitris, Mark, Peter) of Test GL will review EARL Spec. 2003-01-22 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/01/agenda-detail Minutes: **************************** * [Issue 108 Should the fulfillment criteria for CP13.4's navigation requirements specifically include usability in hardcopy? http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html#x108] DH: in favor of the second option. LR: It should be in the ET. I agree with Dom. LH: I agree with David Marston that it should be part of the fullfilment criteria. DM: From a personal point of view, I use hardcopy a lot. LH: It's an easy requirement to fulfill. DH: I agree that it should be usable for the hardcopy version but it should not be in the requirement. If we go in that level of details, we'll have to review our checkpoints KD: Explain the difference between online version and printed version. The only normative version is online. Hardcopy is a plus, and guides for these versions should be in Manual of Style. We should contact Susan Lesch for specific recommendation. LH: explains DH: The point is too narrow and very specific version of the document which is not normative. Poll: No wins. Resolution: We will not include this requirements. But it will be in the discussion verbiage of the checkpoint. * [Issue 104 Should CK7.4 (deprecation examples) be rewritten to cover both producers and consumers? http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html#x104] LH: It does apply to consumers as well. DH: How we define deprecated LR: Define it. LH: explain the deprecated version (---D---) (----N---) Resolution: The point is only for producers. * [Issue 102 Scope and content of the "conformance policy" guideline (GL3). http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html#x102] (Scribe comment: not sure to understand the issue) DM: Discussion if the WG should write down about the decision of the WG and not the spec itself. DH: The SpecGL is about spec not process of the WG. LH: G3 has changed a lot since, maybe it doesn't make sense anymore. I will see the new draft of the G3 and will reopen it if necessary. Resolution: withdrawn because of the change of the Guideline 3. * [Issue 105 Should the "fail" part of the conformance disclaimer be eliminated? http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html#x105] Is it important to have this disclaimer or not? Does it mean that a SpecGL fails if people can't comply to Level A? What does that mean to conform to Level A? The question is "If you follow SpecGL Level A, your spec is not necessary good. If you do not follow SpecGL Level A, your spec can still be good" LONG DISCUSSION to reach the consensus. Resolution: Remove the fail part of the Conformance Disclaimer. * [Issue 99 Scope of definition of test assertion http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html#x99] Definition should in the general glossary and not in the spec itself. In the spec itself there should be only a specific wording for the scope of the spec. Resolution: The definition of the Guideline 14 is taken for the general definition in the Spec GL. * [Issue 93 Why register extensions? http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html#x93] Resolution: Dropped because the CK has already been changed. * [Issue 64 Why register extensions? http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html#x64] Resolution: SHOULD in 2.1 migrates to a MUST SHOULD in 4.4 migrates in the discussion part and lowercasing it. LH do not agree. (Spelling mistake at the begining if -> If ) Which had lead to a discussion about use of SHOULD and MUST in the spec. How should we use with CK and priority the RFC2119, Keywords. What are the implications on the spec itself. SHOULD in 8.1 migrates to a MUST MAY in 5.1 migrates to lowercase. (bug) BREAK Wendy and EARL Historical presentation. There's still a need for test Description Markup but EARL is to markup the result of testing. You can use it also as a bug report language. There is a good list of implementations already. http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/#earl The next step would be to have applications to combine the results issued of an analysis to make for example compatibility chart, or dated reviews compared side by side. Possibly could create a tool for maintaining a Website with dated version of maintenance. It would be good to organize a Workshop on the language to be a uniform Reporting Language or Test Framework. SPEC TEST CASES TEST GENERATION TEST VALIDATION TEST REPORTING Dimitris had no answers about his try to gain to build task force from W3C. He recommends to start as soon as possible to avoid the development of particular tools inside each WG. The scope of the TTF should be limited to a small set of tools. 1. Wendy asks for review of the EARL specs. AI-20030122-01 Kirill Editors (Kirill, Dimitris, Mark, Peter) of Test GL will review EARL Spec. 2003-01-22 2 Meeting Tech Plenary with ERT on Thursday Afternoon