W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2004

Draft minutes of 20040823 telecon

From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:23:20 -0700
To: QAWG <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <412CD918.4010008@sun.com>

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 23-Aug-2004
-- 
Scribe: Patrick Curran

Attendees:
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(DH) HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Regrets:

Absent:

(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)

Summary of New Action Items:
AI-20040823-1 -- KD to draft text on normative references and email to 
alias: due Aug 27
AI-20040823-2 -- DH to draft a response to the TAG's Web Architecture 
document (addressing extensibility): due Sept 6
AI-20040823-3 -- KD to create a formal issues list: due Sept 13


Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Aug/0124.html

Previous Telcon Minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Aug/0125.html


Minutes:


1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership


2.) routine business
    - Next Publication, August 31 (it's a *WD*)

[KD] Points out that we are approaching Working Drafts and not final 
publication. Don't worry about "dropping stuff" - we can fix later
[LH] We should include as much as possible.
[KD] We will keep track of mail thread pointers...


3.) SpecGL Draft. [1]
    Discussion Lead: Karl
    - Update
    - Thanks to Lynne and Mark for the push

[KD] Work is going well. Wants to finalize as soon as possible. Thanks 
to Lynne and Mark for their hard work.
[DH] Is concerned that we don't have a formal issues-list; are we 
tracking issues? Particularly concerned about comments we receive from 
outside.
[KD] Cannot create a formal issues list before publication. Takes an AI 
to create an issues list two weeks after publication.
[LH] Have we chosen a mechanism for tracking issues?
[KD] Not yet.
[LH] Will turn over all previous issues list technologies to KD.


4.) B.3 Normative references in a specification [2]
    Discussion Lead: Karl

[KD] We've had discussion on the alias about the value of maintaining a 
list of normative references. Haven't reached consensus yet. Our current 
draft doesn't have a lot of content. KD will address this (see AI).


5.) Modules-Profiles-Levels/DOV[3]
    Discussion Lead: Karl
    * A draft has been written by Dom.
    Reminder: That you can review it.

[DH] Created a separate technical report (extracted from previous drafts 
of our docs). Asks us to review it - verify that it makes sense outside 
of the context of SpecGL. Comments requested by Wednesday.
[LH] Does it need Patent Policy boilerplate text?
[DH] No - since we aren't planning to make this a Recommendation


6.) Brief Overview of XML Extensibility article [4]
    Discussion Lead: Lynne

    The concepts of extensibility has many levels
    and is not necessary clear for everyone as
    it can be read in this thread about Atom/RDF/RSS [5]

    (side note: will it be necessary to push further and
    explore in an Advanced Topics what are the different
    forms of extensibility)

[LR] Reviewed this article. It's consistent with what we have written in 
SpecGL. They had some good examples. Since there does seem to be 
interest in this subject,
our coverage of this topic in SpecGL will probably be welcomed.
[DH] There's definitely a lot of interest here. TAG is also working on 
this in their Web Architecture document. (It's at second Last Call.) TAG 
has asked us to review it. DH takes an AI to respond.


7.) Additional topics

- PC's report on XKMS Call Last Week.

[PC] Summarized the call. The XKMS team expressed some concerns about 
the testability of their spec, and asked for advice on how to test 
protocol-oriented specifications. Specifically, they are concerned that 
the spec may be too 'flexible' in some areas, hindering 
interoperability. PC concurred, and suggested some areas in which they 
might want to tighten up the spec. The team suggested (PC will pass this 
on) that they contact the XML Protocol team, who are entering CR and
need to demonstrate interoperability.

- Next meeting (September 6 is US holiday)

The team agreed to meet on September 13
 
[KD] Asks the team to let people know once Spec GL has been published;, 
and encourage them to review.
[KD] New version of TestGL, stating that this is on hold, has been 
published.


====================== references =======================

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2004/07/WD-qaframe-spec/
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Aug/0104
[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2004/08/qaframe-spec-advanced-20040830
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Aug/0031
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Aug/0115
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2004 18:23:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:18 GMT