W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > July 2002

FINAL Minutes QA WG 27-June-2002

From: peter fawcett <pfawcett@real.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:02:43 -0700
Message-Id: <v04011706b9525f7ee0bc@[172.23.103.67]>
To: www-qa@w3.org

FINAL Minutes
QA Working Group Teleconference
Thursday, 27-June-2002
--
Scribe: (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)

Attendees:
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) - partial
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)
(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

Dave Marston - Guest

Regrets:
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Absent:


Summary of New Action Items:
ACTION: A-2002-06-27-1: everyone - Get some idea about attendance for next
Face to Face in Tokyo.
ACTION: A-2002-06-27-2: Mark - Determine intent of and clarify checkpoint
5.3 of the older, currently publicly available working draft.


Previous Telcon Minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jun/0092.html

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jun/0082.html

Minutes:

2)
Logistics and action items:

Small update on Week In QA, not much activity yet.

Olivier - bibliography project update.
One source for definitions used in specs and guidelines
Questions about who should be allowed to add material, and what procedure
should be followed for additions.
Olivier will currently be maintainer for now.

3)
Action Item for Everyone - Get some idea of attendance for Tokyo.

Lofton proposing we need to have a special telcon next week to focus on and
get though process of test guidelines and checkpoints. Next Wed 10 am EDT
(7am PDT).

5)
Lofton proposes we shoot for 2nd public working draft of spec guidelines
and keep other goals for august.

6)
Spec Guide Reorganization:
first goal should be to explain and justify how we are structuring the
guidelines and what the logic behind that organization is.
Over all good. Some discussion on having definitions at this level of
detail or is this sufficient. Some people thought that terms could be
linked to their definitions where used in the actual guideline (ex link
that is now Guideline 4, should be a link around modules that points to
modules definition in Guideline 4).
Some editorial comments about 1.5. Needs better organization and some
clarity. Paragraphs need reorganization and tightening.

Guideline 5 - Making an attempt to tie some of the aspects together.
Mark feels we should not have statements of good/badness.

Lots of discussion about the 8 levels of variability. Should WG's have a
checkpoint to justify or publish a decision with use cases on what
dimensions of variability are used, or not used.

First few checkpoints set 'max/min' bounds of conformance. Next few deal
with 'edges' of conformance (extensions).

Checkpoint 5.6 has issues with testability/verifiability.
Issues folks have with this are, open to good/bad judgement, not testable,
and open to interpretation.
Warning's should be added to 3,4,7 about minimizing levels of variability.

Guidelines 3,4 and 7 all basically say the same thing but with specific
info for the specific type of grouping.

These are broken out from the previous spec's Guideline 5.
Some question about the meaning/intent of (old) Guideline 5.3.
5.3 -> 3.3/4.3/7.3
Action Item for Mark/Sandra to think about/come up with clarification
for/against mandatory conditions. What was the original intent behind the
original 5.3 guideline.

7.3/7.4 can go away, minimal level is mandatory level (fold into 7.1?).

Guideline 4.4 get's folded into 4.3. Mandatory module requirement.
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 18:10:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:59 GMT