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

Draft Minutes for QA WG Teleconf 2003/03/17

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: 24 Mar 2003 18:40:21 +0100
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1048527622.5344.35.camel@stratustier>
Please send your corrections by Friday EOB.

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 24 March 2003
--
Scribe: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)

Attendees:
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(DM) David Marston (IBM)

Regrets: 
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)

Absent: 
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Summary of New Action Items: 
AI-20030324-1 PF to send a reply to XML Schema and DI WG on their
comments about TestGl by 2003-03-28

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Mar/0094.html
Previous Telcon Minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Mar/0054.html (draft)

Minutes: 
1) Roll call
See above

2) June meeting update
None, Karl still needs to check with Daniel who's reponsible for the
logistics.

3) TestGL Outline
  PF: sent the mapping from old structure to new
  -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Mar/0061.html
  ... also sent the schema WG feedback on our doc, including TestGL
  ... I went through all their comments on testGL and made a proposal
for resolution
  ... Starting with this list of proposed resolutions of XML Schema
comments
  -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Mar/0062.html
  ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Mar/0062.html
  ... 1st mostly editorial
  ... 2nd, general comment about the intro
  ... 3rd, needs to follow the same structure in intro as in spec and
opsGL
  ... 4th, was already agreed upon during the F2F
  ... next one, simple comment on wording (eliminate vs minimize)
  ... next is about repeating opsGl
  ... [going through the list in the email]
  SM: about LA-6, why is that under "navigating through this document"?
  PF: because it doesn't appear in the doc right now
  PC: about test quality, one could ask for a test plan and a test
result to evaluate it
  ... the software testing process should be applied to the test suite
itself
  PF: we use test plans and I'm a proponent of test plans
  ... we could add that in GL4
  ... discussion about JT6 and the "3 products" rule
  LR: this was done to make the test about platform-independence
  ... so that it was testable
  ... I agree about the intent, but the requirement needs to be modified
  PF: here is a way to test the platform independence (which keeps
coming up)
  ... [which means we require to test the test suite BTW]
  ... discussion on testing products vs testing the test suite
  ... What people think about platform independence for the test suite?
  DH: I think platform independence for test suite is a bit fuzzy
  ... one thing that we can point is that using standards helps having
P-I
  ... for instance XML+XSLT is P-I as far as I can say
  ... but how to phrase that to be testable, I don't know
  LR: 2 things
  ... when someone provides tests, you can check if they run on another
platform
  ... but regarding test cases, some needs to be platform-dependent
  ... so it needs to be allowed in some way
  ... but I don't know how to phrase that either
  PF: the metadata-management is also related
  ... any volunteer to write a CP to deal with that?
  LR: since you and PC are probably busy with the outline, we should
probably wait for a next draft
  PF: ok
  LR: what's the status of the draft?
  PF: people are working on it (PC and I)
  ... DD also, even though he's moving and hence limited in time
  LR: what's the date for the next publication?
  PF: the 26 - ie tomorrow - was what decided during F2F
  ... but I'm not sure we'll meet this date
  ... I can commit to a WG version by Friday
  LR: that will be good
  ... I feel more confortable to volunteer to write CP when I have a
clear idea of what the doc looks like
  PF: re LA15
  PC: that makes me think that we should focus on the reporting format
rather than on filtering tools
  ... it looks like the priority thing to do
  PF: I don't know if we want to impose a format though; EARL would be a
good candidate
  DM: if it is XML, we can make it any other format with XSLT
  LR: what we could do is to at least define a data model: name of the
test, status, etc.
  DH: agreeing, needs to separate data model/format/tools
  PF: finished going through the list
  LR: did you have time to look at DI's comments?
  PF: not really, I've just found it
  LR: they're speaking about some requirements about TS, is that true?
  KD: the only requirement is about interoprability between 2
implementations for CR exit
  LR: PF, maybe you could ask the WG back about that?
  KD, DH: [clarifying the requirements set by the PD]
  DI WG comments:http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/03/DIWGcomments#TG-1
  PF: re TG2, again about test suite testing
  ... re TG3, belongs to ExTech
  LR: would you reply to the WGs (XML Schema and DI)?
  PF: I can do that.
  ... by Friday
  -> AI PF to reply to XML Schema and DI WG by Friday
  LR: next item is about the mapping between old and new testGL
  ... PF, could you give us a quick overview?
  PF: it was a specific request from Kirill
  ... to map from the old structure to the new one
  ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Mar/0061.html
  ... the summary gives the general idea
  ... [going through the summary]
  LR: any other comments?
  KD: not related to testGL
  ... but I sent to www-qa a review of HTML4.01 with SpecGL
  ... it was quite hard to identify the conformance requirements
  ... I'd like that the WG react on that
  ... e.g., what's the scope of a must, which are part of a conformance
requirement?
  ... is there a need for a specific mark-up?
  ... etc. right now, it is very difficult to put any requirements on
very simple things
  ... please react on that if you have some suggestions
  ... I'll try to review XHTML 2 to see if there have been improvements
  LR: we're done... LH will be back next week and we'll be focussing on
specGL

-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org

Received on Monday, 24 March 2003 12:40:23 GMT

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