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: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:06:16 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050314075742.0429ede8@localhost>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 11:12 AM 3/14/2005 +0100, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>Le dimanche 13 mars 2005 à 13:11 -0700, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
> > >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.
> >
> > Summary:  if we're going to take attribution (which is fine with me), we
> > should revise it to be more accurate.
>
>Unless you make a specific proposal, I'd rather keep it as is; while
>it's not 100% accurate,


Concrete proposal #1:  Don't include attribution.

Alternative proposal:  Give Lofton an AI to redraft the story.


>I think that our decision to proceed as we
>decided to should have been reconsidered if we had done the type of
>quality review we're suggesting.

This is the part that I dispute.  Perhaps I remember it from a different 
perspective.  But it was a quite conscious decision to do it this way.  We 
discussed it and everyone agree -- no one dissented.  It was not an oversight.

In fact it was modeled on what WAI did with their first generation of 
Guidelines.  WCAG 1.0 was publish ahead of all of the Techniques.

> > [...]
> > >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.
>
>It was decided to make it normative since we decided to require specGL
>implementors to fill it up to claim conformance to SpecGL.

I don't think it is normative.  It does not fit our definition of 
normative, "prescriptive or containing conformance requirements".

(Btw, "normative" has disappeared from SpecGL Glossary, from the 
"all-inclusive QA Glossary", etc.  When did that happen (LC?)?  Given the 
amount of time we spent arguing the definition, around Last Calll time, it 
would seem useful to keep the resolved definition in the Glossary.


> > As defined Thursday (Boston), isn't the ICS an (unsubstantiated) claim of
> > spec authors' intent to conform to SpecGL?
>
>... until it is required to claim conformance.

It is still unsubstantiated and unsupported (according to Boston) -- it is 
simply a tool for making a claim.

-Lofton.
Received on Monday, 14 March 2005 15:06:22 GMT

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