W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2005

Final Minutes QA WG Teleconference 25 April 2005

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:10:29 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050430150623.00ba3df0@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 25 April 2005

Scribe: Lynne

Attendees:

(TB) Tim Boland (NIST)
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, Chair)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

Regrets:

(RK) Richard Kennedy (Boeing)

Absent:

Summary of New Action Items:

AI-20052504-01: Karl to draft umbrella specification text:  26 April 2005
AI-20052504-02: Dimitris to add SVG Tiny, re-sort table, add introduction: 
28 April 2005


Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Apr/0105.html
Previous Telcon Minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Apr/0106.html


Minutes:

1) Roll call
2) Routine Business
Dublin F2F: no new information at this time regarding logistics


3) GP as optional features: [1] Lofton's proposal

Good Practices were considered informative, but agreement to change GPs to 
be considered normative, optional.  Lofton's drafted a proposal (subject 
line blank).  Proposal includes definitions of normative and informative, 
definitions that were in previous version of SpecGL.  Agree with proposed 
changes.

Item C., Lofton to find email with suggested wording, so editors can make 
appropriate change.

Item D, boilerplate wording of RFC 2119.  SpecGL recommends uppercase or 
bold.  Should we follow this advice?  SpecGL currently uses lowercase, no 
distinctive formatting. Karl to implement specific markup for MUST and make 
it visible (bold).
Item J.  Defined label: "specification guidelines conformant", but never 
use this label.  Editors need to incorporate the label into the section on 
conformance claims.  Put into SpecGL conformance claim template.

Glossary terms.  Review glossary to make sure all terms in the document are 
also in the glossary.  This needs to be done, but is deferred until after 
publication of next working draft.

4) Draft Answer Reviews (Karl, Dom, Patrick)
Karl has a few to do, Lynne and Richard need to do theirs.  Dom has
integrated all the drafts he has received.  Accept reviews that have been 
sent to mailing list.  Lofton still has a few more to do.

5) SpecGL issues: 1148 [2], 1149 [3]
1148.  Accept. Drop example
1149.  Accept new prose.

6) Variability in Specification publishing
Text for umbrella specification needs to be improved and include discussion 
that was on this topic.  Volunteer: Karl

Since there is a link in SpecGL, we need to republish this document. It
would be best to have new text on umbrella specification done in time for 
republication.   It is O.K. to put in draft text that has not been fully 
reviewed by the WG.  Goal is to publish at same time as SpecGL.

Additional text needed for: explaining the different categories and address 
discretionary items.  Karl to ask Dave Marston to draft text.

7) SpecGl Implementation Report  [4]

Dimitris has drafted a preliminary report. Still need to do ICS for SVG
Tiny.  Provides an excellent summarized review.  At top, need to indicate 
all the specifications that are included in the Tables.  Suggest reordering 
the table (sort by date) to show that SpecGL has helped to improve 
specification writing.   Should we do more?  Put current version in WG 
space, so that we can link to it, showing we have a preliminary 
implementation report.  If there are too many requirements or good 
practices that have not been implemented - how should we handle 
these?  There are 2 implementations that have implemented everything 
(XML:id and SpecGL).  Put SVG Tiny into table.   Any volunteers to review 
other specifications? Silence.  Dom to publish on WG space when received 
from Dimitris.

8) Publication status of Test FAQ

Can we announce this?  Thank you to Patrick on a job well done. Patrick
having it reviewed by a tech writer (doing quality review).  Will have it 
done by end of the week.  Be prepared for comments - comments is a good thing.

Adjourn.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Apr/0099.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1148

[3] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1149
[4] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Apr/att-0100/SpecGLImplementationReport20050422.html
Received on Saturday, 30 April 2005 20:11:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:20 GMT