Re: Draft minutes of QAWG Telcon 2004-07-26

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for producing these drafts minutes quickly! I've noted a few
corrections below; most of them are confusion between Karl and I, which
I understand are commonly done on the phone ;) (maybi zis iz doo too ur
french accent? ;)

Le mar 27/07/2004 à 15:12, andrew@opengroup.org a écrit :
> Summary of New Action Items:
> 
>  LH To rewrite the TestGL document status section as agreed. Due 2004-08-09 
>  DH to send email to TAG to explain how we are looking at the issue. Due 2004-08-09

I think Karl took that action item, not me.


>  DH: Wiki s/w to blame. We tried to contribute to s/w but developers are 
>  protective

Again, that was Karl's.
		 
> 
>   3.) How to manage normative references in W3C Specifications
>         Issue Bjrn Hrhmann [1]

Björn Hörhmann (or if your MUA don't support these characters, Bjoern
Hoermann)

>         Dicussion Lead: Karl [2]
> 
>  KD: Implication of pointing to a ref'd spec. includes a feature taken from 
> 	another spec. So ref. has to be precise.
> 
>  DD: We should try to get a very basic solution.

That was me :)

>  DM: E.g. XML 1.1 names & Unicode has this tracking.
> 
>  LH: It's a fairly rare circumstance - what shoud spec-lite attitude be - treat 
>  it as a rarity?
> 
>  KD: I'm not comfortable with it - we can't predict future of a spec - 
>  e.g. deprecated features

That was me too.

>  DM: One could imagine it with functions & operators (for example reusing XPATH material)
> 
>  PC: Examples where a ref. is strictly normative are very rare and dangerous 

examples where a reference to a future version of a spec is strictly
normative ...

>  [ agreement that discussion should go in B.3]	

I think Karl also agreed to draft the SpecGL text about this.

>   4.) XML and Extensibility
>         Discussion Lead: Dom [3]
>         Dave Marston has a suggestion [4]
>         """
>         Would it be enough for SpecGL to say that every
>         WG must assume that there will be a newer version
>         of every spec? Maybe we could add in some principles
>         that are already well established, such as: everything
>         in the XML world must be marked with a version
>         identifier.
>         """
> 	
>  DM: Both the article & Dave Orchard article recognise that versioning gets complicated 
>  so propose use extension mechansims to solve 80-90% of these issues.
> 
>  MS: Version - this may be an Ops issue, rather than Spec issue?
> 
>  DH: Would someone like to volunteer to review the artcle?

That was Karl.

>  DM: I did analyse the other article. TAG is new - everyone saying the we can't solve the 
>  entire thing but TAG will eventually produce something like an OpsGL. So SpecGL could 
>  say 'use the TAG recommendation'
> 		
>  KD: So what overlap do we have with the web arch doc?

That was me.
		
>  [ AI - DH to send email to TAG to explain how we are looking at the issue. due 2 weeks ]

(AI for Karl)
		
>  KD: Dave.. who would you like to review your published items?
> 
>  LH: I intend to do that
> 		
>  DH: LH just sent a mail about status of Handbook..
> 		
>  - Extra item: QAH editing status [2]
> 
>  LH: Item (1) The question of how to deal with knock-on effects of TestGL delay.
>  there are 6 places in QAH affected.
>  I propose that we don't try to rewrite these to reflect delayed status of 
>  TestGl but rather put a caveat in status section.
>  In ref. section - I would like to explain status of TestGL & point to incubator 
>  area/wiki
> 		
>  LH: all links in text point to ref section - which point to TR
> 		
>  KD: but it will be redundant...
> 
>  -- [@@ AT I missed some of this conversation]
> 
>  LH: Is everyone happy with proposal? [to not rewrite]
> 		
>  [no objections]
> 		
>  LH: Also it lets us talk about it at the next f2f since next publication will be 
>  after that.
> 		
>  LH: we agreed to split out appendix - primer & usage scenarios as a seperate doc.
>  Follow links on the mail [2] I just sent: item (2). QAH now references QA roadmap. 
>  It's unclear what status of roadmap will be.
> 		
>  Regarding items 3,4,5: people might want to look at these and respond by email
> 		
>  LR: Re. QAPD->TSPD: I recal from f2f that we discovered that all different WGs 
>  called it a 'test process' document
> 		
>  DH: Using 'TS' makes it too specialized - no room for non-test subjects to be added.
> 		
>  LH: 90% of material is related to tests. but we don't restrict addition of  
>  non-test material in there. So maybe we shouldn't clamp down the scope yet.
> 		
>  LH: Re. capitalized question (item 5)?
>  DH: 'Yes', should be.
> 		
>  LH: item 4, chronology diagram. this gets more & more irrelevant to QAH. Should 
>  we keep it?  (in any form)
> 		
>  DH: I prefer to keep it in some form

I don't remember having said that... Maybe Karl did?

>  LH: A suggestion to QAWG - can anyone propose a simplfied version?

Thanks,

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