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

Re: Draft Minutes for March 3 PM F2F

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 11:01:54 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050305104349.02234638@localhost>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org


Hi,

I have some minor questions / comments about the draft minutes...

At 09:25 AM 3/4/2005 -0500, Mark Skall wrote:
>[...]
>Consensus:  Should limit ICS to just declarative, but an ICS linked to 
>tests that are passed can strengthen a conformance claim.

Does consensus imply unanimous?  (This Resolution wasn't -- tho' I don't 
intend to object to the resolution, I disagree with it.)


>Issue 955
>(LH) TAG requested that there should be positive statements about features 
>(e.g., state that there are no deprecated features.)
>(TB) It may be difficult to determine the presence of a deprecated feature 
>since things may be combined.
>(DM) Can usually get answers about deprecated features from test suite.
>(DH) We agree there should be a positive statement about features.  If 
>they don’t exist, it should be stated.
>(LR) Are we listing all optional features?
>(DH) Only if optional features exist.
>(LH) Should enumerate optional features, if small enough in the 
>conformance clause.
>Consensus: We agree there should be a positive statement about features 
>referred to in every Good Practice.  If they don’t exist, it should be 
>stated in the conformance clause.

...else either enumerate them in the CC, or describe how to find and 
identify them in the body of the spec.

>[...]
>Issue 1045 Avoiding device-dependent profiles
>(DH) We are discouraging this and point to where this can hurt 
>interoperability.
>(KD) Action item to draft response.

I'm unsure from this ... are we agreeing or disagreeing with Ian?  I mostly 
disagree that there should be a blanket statement about class-of-device 
profiles.  (Note:  I distinguish class-of-device, like Mobile Phones, from 
device-dependent, like the Sharp XYZ mobile phone.)


>Next face to face meeting ≠ Targeting Dublin with back-ups of Montreal and 
>Sophia, France ≠ June 21-23.

(St. Petersburg is off the list?)

Finally, I note that there are no due dates on any of the AIs (maybe dates 
were assigned on Friday?).  I'm interested to know when to expect a couple 
of the draft responses, for QAWG review.

-Lofton.
Received on Saturday, 5 March 2005 18:02:07 GMT

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