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

Re: Draft minutes Boston F2F, 4 Friday 2005 AM

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:11:16 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050313125812.021097c0@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 11:59 AM 3/4/2005 -0500, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>[...]
>#1155 Use your own example
>Section 5 Story ≠ identify the group, QAWG.
>RESOLUTION:  agree with the TAG.  We won’t be so modest and will come out 
>of the closet.

I more or less agreed with TAG, but had another comment about this.  The 
story is not completely accurate.  For example, the lagging status of the 
ExTech components (and other informative supporting documents) was not due 
to lack of quality review, but was a conscious strategy decision that was 
made (in fact, imitating what WAI was then doing on some of its specs -- 
their Techniques documents were lagging behind their early).  It may have 
been wrong, but wasn't due to quality review (or lack of it).

Summary:  if we're going to take attribution (which is fine with me), we 
should revise it to be more accurate.

[...]
>In Conformance Claim section, add bullet to ‘include a completed ICS; Add 
>to the example reference to the ICS ≠ e.g., An ICS proforma is at <give 
>URI>.  Clarify the ‘you can claim conformance’ that this is one example of 
>what the claim can look like it.  Need to move SpecGL’s ICS from 
>informative to normative.

Huh?  How can it be normative if it contains no conformance requirements, 
no test assertions, etc?  Another way to look at it, who would conform to 
the SpecGL ICS itself, and how?  The ICS itself is not prescriptive of any 
behavior or characteristic of a spec conforming to SpecGL.

As defined Thursday (Boston), isn't the ICS an (unsubstantiated) claim of 
spec authors' intent to conform to SpecGL?

The ICS proforma is a tool (template), not a normative part of SpecGL, and 
it is provided to help spec authors claim SpecGL conformance.

-Lofton.
Received on Sunday, 13 March 2005 20:11:29 GMT

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