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

Draft minutes: QA Telcon of 12-January-2004

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:10:20 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 12 January 2004
Scribe: Lynne

(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(MC) Martin Chamberlain (Microsoft)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

(DM) David Marston

(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems)

(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Summary of New Action Items: No new action item
AI-20040112-1 Mark to Redraft TAs against Nov SpecGL (CP5.3 on):  16 January
AI-20040112-2 David to discuss new CP on relation between spec versions: 16 

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Jan/0040.html

Previous Telcon Minutes: (draft) 


2.) routine business
-For Martin, everyone introduce self.
-Future telecoms: 26 January will be discussion of Jeremy Carroll’s 
comments. Also will discuss this on Wed, 14 January.
-Tech Plenary deadlines approaching  make reservations early.  Hotel 
deadline: 20 January.

3.) TA list for SpecGL
Karl and Lofton have actions to start email discussions on several TA topics.

CP Number: 5.2
Issue: Discretionary items are broad.  What needs to be documented and how 
much is enough.
Discussion: DM’s 
About the constraints.  Say you have either a full range of choice or you 
must state any of the possible restraints, conditions, etc.  How far must 
someone go in order to satisfy this CP? Difficult to draw line. Must 
traverse any normative reference for upon which this spec depends.   Need a 
generic approach. Lofton/David write up ideas.
Decision: /describe/address/ remove ‘any’, put DM’s illustrations in ET.

CPs in 5, 6.2, 6.6 have all changed

CP Number 7.2
Issue:  What is difference between ‘text’ and content’. Should ConfReq 
distinguish between illustrations, use cases, etc.  Discussion is confusing.
Discussion: Should be content in both places.   Everything in the spec must 
be defined as normative or informative. Content includes prescriptive text, 
examples, illustrations, and use cases.
Decision: change /text/content/.  Change Discussion wording of content.

CP Number 7.3
Issue: impossible to test.
Discussion: probably best we can do.  Maybe not be a CP, but in ET. Make 
this a SHOULD, that is, it is more a guide rather than a requirement. 
Identical can be tested if know what provisions means.  More like an 
example of what to do. This (consistent terms) is an instance of the 
broader concept of writing clear, understandable specs. Can be tested if 
someone takes the time to read carefully a spec.  Analogous can’t be tested.
Decision: remove analogous part, put as a discussion.  Still some 
disagreement over first part  identical wording.

CP Number 7.4
Issue: Require a change history. Summary of the difference versions
Discussion: Need another CP to address DoV with past specs. Include as a 
4th bullet in ConfReq.  What is in the list are already in SpecGL as a 
requirement.  What is being proposed is not a requirement (CP), although it 
could be thought of as a type of deprecation. Address for any spec >1, its 
relation to previous versions. Require a change history.  Add a new CP.
Decision: email discussion regarding new bullet item and CP.
Received on Monday, 12 January 2004 12:10:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:32 UTC