W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > February 2005

WG liaisons (Re: [meeting] summary of discussions - 2005-02-22)

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:53:30 +0900
Message-Id: <5e2b57d6c5876a109d8f78a58efcbff4@w3.org>
To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>

On Feb 23, 2005, at 18:29, olivier Thereaux wrote:
> * Gathering test cases a.k.a involving the WGs in the validator *
> a "good thing" (TM) would be to have more interaction between WGs and 
> the validators, and even though most of them may think we are 
> irrelevant to their work until we make progress with m12n and move 
> away from DTD-only paradigm, a few groups could benefit from more 
> interaction with us. One suggestion was to prepare a WBS (survey) for 
> WG chairs.

Our own plan/timeline is very important here. If we think we can have a 
first m12n'd version of the markup validator by e.g may, this will 
drastically change the message I will bring to other groups at the TP 
next week. (See also my next message on releasing another 0.6.x 

> [additional discussions on SVG validation, orphaned svgvalidator, and 
> future work in this area ]

I don't remember mentioning this in any of our meetings (though I do 
recall chatting about it on IRC), but I had some very good discussions 
with members of the SVG WG last november at the AC Meeting. The core of 
it is that the SVG WG is going to allocate resource to work on 
validation for SVG1.2. The possible scenarios is that if we can provide 
them a framework to do schema/relax with our validator, I assume they 
will be happy to work with our tool, otherwise they will create a 
different service that we can then "proxy" from v.w.o like we do for 

> * HTML 4.01 errata work *
> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qa-dev/2005Feb/0035.html
> Some mentions of such a work in progress appeared in HTML WG minutes 
> recently. Very brief, but worth keeping an eye at, especially for a 
> couple of errata items very relevant to validation.
> Tech Plenary in a few days, it would be good to liaise with HTML WG 
> there.

Are there other such issues than

I agree with the former and its proposed resolution, and (as I was 
saying on IRC yesterday) would amend the proposed resolution: as far as 
I can understand, the current verbiage is not consistent, but would be 
if "Authors must specify the style sheet language of style information 
associated with an HTML document." was replaced with "Authors should 
specify the style sheet language of style information associated with 
an HTML document." Also, drop "Documents that include elements that set 
the style attribute but which don't define a default style sheet 
language are incorrect.

I will at least have a chat with some HTML WG members on this topic, at 
best (if possible) I will try to see if I can join their meeting.

Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 09:53:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:54:48 UTC