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

WD Minutes: Day 2 Morning

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:51:07 +0300
Message-Id: <a05200f49bb1494b377df@[10.0.1.3]>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Meeting QA: Agenda

http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/06/f2f

No discussion about + Test materials license, except in the context of Test GL.


* Charter and Test Materials for our own Guidelines

http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/06/qaframe-ops-20030609

We are in the process of rechartering and we want to conform to the 
QA OPs Guidelines. We will comply to the triple-A conformance. Daniel 
will write a draft charter and we will fill the holes in it.

We are trying to define what Test materials mean for the Spec and Ops 
Guidelines. Lofton has proposed that Techniques could be a part of 
the Test Materials for the QA GLs. A discussion has raised about it. 
Do we have Test Materials? Is the CP on giving TM is applicable?

The discussion is about if the Techniques are enough and if the 
techniques do not cover the Test needed to test the CP, we can have a 
clause which says that you can explain the techniques you have used 
to test it. But what's happening when the technique used is wrong. Is 
the test bad? Is the CP bad? The discussion is trying to nail all 
details of this.

Question: What is TM?
Resolution: a questionnaire asking how the individual requirements are met.

* Spec GL Processing

Test Assertion spin-off issues.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Jun/0021.html

Any specifications which want to be AA compliant have to include Test 
Assertions but at the same time it's a big burden. Test Assertions 
have a value for good specifications.
	It allows to improve the quality of the spec itself by making 
people writing a better specification.
	Should the CPs must be P2 or P3?
	What is the exact value of this CP and how much does it 
require to do it?
	SpecGL is not to make better Test Suites but better Spec.
	Are the testable assertions are useful for the clarity of the 
language used in the spec?

	P2: No disagreement
	Warning wording: No disagreement
	Auto-generation:  Agreed on the wording done by Lynne.
	Exemption from TA:
This is not applicable to specification written in a formal language 
that allows for automatic generation of test materials

-- 
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
           http://www.w3.org/QA/

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 06:09:14 GMT

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