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

QA WG F2F - SpecGL - Agenda Thursday

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:49:20 +0100
Message-Id: <E046F3E5-28B5-11D9-8C06-000A95718F82@w3.org>
To: 'www-qa-wg@w3.org' <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Agenda for Thursday
QA WG F2F - Reading (UK)

Main Topic: SpecGL

reading-001:
	Lynne - [[[ Our Conformance Clause uses “must” and has a normative  
implication. ]]]  
http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2004/10/WD-qaframe-spec/#conformance
	must is used in lowercase. In the whole document only principles are  
normatives. The rest is informative.

reading-002:
	Lynne - [[[ 1.1 Good Practice B: Define the specification's  
conformance model in the conformance clause. ]]]
	http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2004/10/WD-qaframe-spec/#conformance-model
	About the techniques: [[[ This may be too Profile/Level/Module  
focused.  #1 Thought we were going to stay away from the term DoV. ]]]

reading-003:
	Bjoern/Dom/Karl - 2.3 Make a list of normative (and non-normative)  
references
	No Principles defined, No Good Practices defined.
	Suggestions:
		Principle: Create a list of Normative references.	Issues for GP  
and/or Principles

		- When making a normative reference, you need to see how future  
versions of the said specification may affect your own document. But  
How do you evaluate that. How are you sure that you will be able to  
make reference to something you do not necessary control. You may want  
to draw a diagram of dependencies ala XHTML-Print but it can't be a  
requirement.
	http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Test/xhtml-print/current/spec.jpg
	
		- Address the way you "use" the conformance model of the referred  
specification
	When you are making a reference to another specification it comes with  
its own conformance model, you should not modify it and respect it but  
if you really need to do it. What do you have to take care of.

	References: Lofton Send a message
	http://www.w3.org/mid/5.1.0.14.2.20041020071036.02fb04f8@rockynet.com
	[[[
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-svg-wg/2004OctDec/0419.html  
(member-only)

This is an interesting aspect of the (open) normative references topic  
for SpecGL.  A normative reference might not be tied to a specific  
version of the referenced standard.  This means that the conformance  
requirements for the referencing standard might change over time.]]]

reading-004
	[[[3.1 Good Practice C: <del>Define the terms in-line, and consolidate  
the definitions in a glossary section</del>]]]
	This section needs to have a new wording. The idea is that the terms  
have to be defined locally but have to be consolidated in a glossary  
where you can refer to with all the terms in one place.

reading-005
	[[[ 4.1 Good Practice A: Create subdivisions of the technology when  
warranted by the variety of use cases. ]]]
	ISSUE: Need umbrella to encompass more than use cases, but also  
requirements, technology, etc.

reading-006
	Mark's Skall review of "2.1 GP C: Provide Examples, Use Cases and  
Graphics."
	http://www.w3.org/mid/ 
6.0.0.22.2.20041021151740.03b371a8@wsxg03.nist.gov
	In addition Richard Kennedy  has reviewed the review :)))
	http://www.w3.org/mid/ 
5.1.0.14.2.20041023125201.00bb6060@mailserver.nist.gov

reading-007
	Reference to TestGL to be removed
	To add QAH, QAF-Primer, ViS
	Any persons against that?
	http://www.w3.org/mid/ 
5.1.0.14.2.20041020122528.030b5c58@mailserver.nist.gov

reading-008
	Examples given by Jeremy Carroll for DOV
	http://www.w3.org/mid/ 
5.1.0.14.2.20041025093412.00b0e210@mailserver.nist.gov
	Should it go in SpecGL or in Variability in Specifications
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Jun/0053.html
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Jun/0054.html


reading-009
	David's Marston answer to the TAG about versioning
	http://www.w3.org/mid/OF2ABD879D.2DB02525-ON85256F38.004E0420@lotus.com
	Do we agree?
	Who is sending it to the TAG?


reading-010
	Lofton - [[[1.1 Good Practice C Specify in the conformance clause how  
to distinguish normative from informative content ]]]
	[[[ There's still an issue from Lofton if we should define here the  
way the normative language is defined. ]]]
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Aug/0081.html

reading-011
	David Marston - Mandatory Modules in SpecGL
	http://www.w3.org/mid/OF5886BB1B.34CC8B90-ON85256F20.005EF581@lotus.com
	The comments were made on the August version of the document, not the  
editor's draft.
	Proposed changes: The techniques and the graphics.

reading-012
	David Marston - Mandatory Modules in Vis
	http://www.w3.org/mid/OF4C2464B1.C80438DA-ON85256F23.00051268 
-85256F23.000912A9@lotus.com

reading-013
	Lofton - QA Handbook 	
	http://www.w3.org/mid/5.1.0.14.2.20041027112236.03760238@rockynet.com
	- Numbering Scheme
	- Renaming Principles as Guidelines more than  GPs to avoid redundancy


Action Items to do
AI-20041018-1: Karl to find an example of ICS for SpecGL by 2004-10-25  
of GP 1.2C
AI-20041018-2: Karl to review the usage of "developer" in SpecGL by
2004-10-25
AI-20041018-3: Karl to adapt the wording wrt normative vs informative
sections in "about the document", in SpecGL by 2004-10-25


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Thursday, 28 October 2004 08:18:10 GMT

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