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

Draft minutes of 20050221 QA WG teleconf

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:09:57 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050221082522.03e234d0@localhost>
To: 'www-qa-wg@w3.org' <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

QAWG -- Please review and send comments and corrections...
----------


QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 21 February 2005
--
Scribe: Lofton

Attendees:
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG chair)
(DH) Dominique Haza√ęl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO)
(RK) Richard Kennedy (Boeing Commercial Airplanes)

Regrets:
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(TB) Tim Boland (NIST)

Absent:
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)


Summary of New Action Items:
[Format:  AI-YYYYMMDD-N   Who    What    (DEADLINE) ]
AI-20040221-1 -- Karl -- look for an example of GP 1.2C (due:  2005-02-28)
AI-20040221-2 -- Karl --  propose numbering solution (due:  2005-02-28).

Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Feb/0040.html

Previous Telcon Minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Feb/0028.html

Minutes:

Due to low attendance, we decided to work on easy,  editorial issues.  All 
bug references may be found starting at [1].

Issue #983:  The issue as stated is a hybrid of 1.2A, B, C.  There really 
isn't any "ICS claim" in SpecGL.  Karl will clarify.  (AI to Karl:  look 
for an example of GP 1.2C (2005-02-28).)  Some discussion about whether we 
have to drop 1.2C if we can't find an example.  WCAG almost goes all the 
way:  it has wording for conformance claim, and it has an ICS (checklist), 
but it doesn't combine a reference to ICS into conformance claim wording.

Issue #990:  Karl proposes that it is old and probably closed.

Issue #1052:  Discussion about the definition only.  Lofton questioned what 
was meant or implied by "to which it has been determined", and pointed out 
that it invites the question "by whom and when is it determined"?  Was this 
a conscious attempt to put some waffle wording into the definition in order 
to appease XML Core's comment?  Agreed to change to, "to which the WG has 
determined".  We'll wait until more people are present to tackle the issue 
itself.

Issue #1043:  Karl agreed to change the prose.  Closed.

Issue #1087:  Closed per Lynne's suggestion.

Issue #1050:  (Modesty requirement.)  Defer until more people are present 
to look at Dom's analysis and Lofton's comment.

Issue #1058:  Confusing section numbering.  Karl takes AI to propose 
numbering solution (2005-02-28).

Issue #1060:  Dom wanted to clarify about previous minutes, who was to do 
the AI  (@@ scribe missed here ... what AI?@@.  Agreed it is Karl's (not 
Dom's).

Telecon closed 11:55am EST.

References

[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?regetlastlist=1 
Received on Monday, 21 February 2005 19:10:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:19 GMT