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

Re: Draft Minutes for March 3 PM F2F

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:39:21 +0100
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1110195561.11665.31.camel@stratustier>
Le samedi 05 mars 2005 à 11:01 -0700, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
> 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.)

No, it doesn't. The Process document reads:
"""
Consensus: A substantial number of individuals in the set support the
decision and nobody in the set objects. Individuals in the set may
abstain. Abstention is either an explicit expression of no opinion or
silence by an individual in the set. Unanimity is the particular case of
consensus where all individuals in the set support the decision (i.e.,
no individual in the set abstains).
"""
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/policies.html#Consensus


> >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.

That's already the case, isn't it?

> >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.)

Basically, we're saying Ian misunderstood the intent of our text since
his comment seems to imply we would favor variability when in fact we
aren't - a later reading showed that in fact, the warning about
variability was not very visible under the requirement itself and that
may need to be amended.

Wrt to device-dependence or not, we agreed this wasn't something that
could be decided as a general rule, and that in particular there were
some well-known cases where device-dependent profiles made plenty of
sense (e.g. CSS). 

> >Next face to face meeting ­ Targeting Dublin with back-ups of Montreal and 
> >Sophia, France ­ June 21-23.
> 
> (St. Petersburg is off the list?)

It is, as we realized that the prices were at their top as this time of
the year.

> 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.

Dates were not assigned on Friday; the default deadline for AI without
dates is next teleconf (next Monday), AFAICT.

Dom
-- 
Dominique Haza√ęl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org


Received on Monday, 7 March 2005 11:39:23 GMT

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