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

Draft minutes of Jan 5, 2005 telecon

From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:11:34 -0800
To: QAWG <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <41DC8236.1050506@sun.com>
Comments and corrections are welcome.



QA Working Group Teleconference
Wednesday, 05 January 2005

--
Scribe: Patrick Curran

Attendees:

(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems) 
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, Chair) 
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C) 
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO) 
(RK) Richard Kennedy (Boeing)	
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST) 

(DM) David Marston (IBM)

Regrets: 

(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) 

Absent: 

(TB) Tim Boland (NIST) 


Summary of New Action Items: 

AI-20050105-01: KD to modify the SpecGL implementation report to distinguish 'not applicable' from 'cannot tell'. Due Jan 7, 2005
AI-20050105-02: KD to modify the SpecGL implementation report to indicate partial impmentations and whether reviewer said 'yes' or 'no'. Due Jan 7, 2005

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Jan/0005.html [DRAFT]
Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Jan/0002.html


Minutes: 


1) roll call 

2) routine business

* Next teleconferences
    12-January-2004  Telecon Scheduled ([LR] Chair)
        Test FAQ: In-depth discussion.       
    26-January-2004  Telecon Scheduled ([DH] Chair)
        Review of issues of SpecGL and closing them
        Last Call ends 28 January 2005

* Issues list
  (no discussion)

* Technical Plenary organization
  F2F is planned for Thursday and Friday

* Other
  [DM] reports that there are two people at IBM who are interested in joining the QAWG


3) TAG-QA about Umbrella specification and Process Document
     Lead: Karl 

KD has exchanged mail with Ian Jacobs re the W3C Process Document, pointing out that  
the process doc deals only with individual documents (assuming that a technology
can be and is defined in a single document) while it is an increasingly common 
practice to define technologies through multiple documents/specifications.
Ian has asked for specific examples of where this is a problem.
KD: SVG 1.2 relies on previous version of SVG, but doesn't mention it
LH: intention is to combine 1.1 and 1.2 into a single document
KD: as we review specs for SpecGL conformance we may find additional examples


4) Status of Implementation of SpecGL and reviews
   Lead: Karl

* Our reviews

See the implementation report at http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/12/reports-list-table

KD: reports that the results so far are reasonable. One problem area is requirement
4.3a (address extensibility) - most of the specs reviewed so far do not implement this.
Implementations of the optional Good Practices are fewer, but nevertheless we can still
claim some improvement in the quality of specs due to implementations of these practices.

LH: comparing SpecGL with WebArch document: is it necessary that all recommendations be widely
implemented?

KD: we have been told during CR that we must have two complete implementations

LH: but SpecGL is a different beast from a web technology: do we need to apply the same criteria?

KD: nevertheless - as we review specs, and the summary of implementations 
(where specs have not implemented our recommendations) figure out why - review critically.

KD: should we highlight problem areas where we can't figure out whether something is not 
applicable (can't tell)?

consensus: yes - this could indicate problem with our spec

KD: took AI to modify the table to make this distinction clear

KD: how to handle 'partial' implmementations?
PC/DM: 'yes' or 'no' with reservations?
DH: 'partial' is OK (specify whether reviewer said yes or no)

KD: took AI to modify the table accordingly

KD: do we need additional reviews?
DH: no - it's more important that we get reviews from other WGs

KH: whenever he discusses SpecGL with others, they say that they like it. 
We're not seeing the concerns and reservations we saw before.


* Reviews by other WGs/Organizations
* What's missing? Deadline is very close.

[No discussion]


5) Other business

LR/PC: Next week's discussion will be on the Test FAQ; PC will send an email to get 
people started (things to think about, how we will approach the discussion).

DH: reported on a discussion with Jacques Durand from Fujitsu (in OASIS) about
collaborating on defining a test assertion markup language. He will provide further
details later.


6.) Adjourn
    Overflow (12-12:30): available. 
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:10:56 GMT

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