- From: Andrew Thackrah <andrew@opengroup.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:14:39 +0100
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QA Working Group Teleconference Final Minutes Wednesday, 31-July-2002 -- Scribe: [Andrew Thackrah] Attendees: (DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) (DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster) (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair) (DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster) (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair) (SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST) (JM) Jack Morrison (Sun) (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group) Regrets: (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair) (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft) (MS) Mark Skall (NIST) Absent: (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks) Summary of New Action Items: A-2002-07-31-1: DH to investigate web requirements (eg CGI) to handle questionaire form A-2002-07-31-2: KD to send feedback request message to team contacts A-2002-07-31-3: LH to send feedback request message to chairs list A-2002-07-31-4: KD to choose the review subject for any QAWG members who have not already chosen a subject A-2002-07-31-5: LH to ask David Marston if he would like to carry out a review A-2002-07-31-6: DD to complete questionnaire final draft by 2002-08-14 and circulate to QAWG Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jul/0096.html Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jul/0064.html Minutes: 2) Logistical topics LH: About the Tokyo face-to-face meeting. See agenda link [0] for preliminary information. About the hotel: it is clean and cheap. The meeting is definite. Airfares have dropped in the last month by 30-40% KD: The hotel is very good. It is convenient for the train and practical for exploring the city. 3) doc-tech questionnaire LH: Regarding the call for comments on the questionnaire ( agenda link [1]). There have been no further comments. I think we should not wait for further comments. We should go ahead and use it now. It's important to get this in use - it is a prerequisite for our goal of prototyping a test assertion markup language. It needs an introduction. DD: yes, it does need an intro. LH: Apart from the lack of an introduction, one thing is missing: how do we get feedback? Should we use team contacts? (they could deliver to WG editors for dispersal among members). Or do we invite feedback direct to the QAWG list? Or direct to Dimitris for further editing? KD: In Montreal we agreed to make a web-based form for people to submit feedback DH: We need the cgi scrips to process this. There maybe some materials available already. [Action Item for DH to investigate this] DD: Can we make this (quasi)mandatory? Chair AND team contacts should be approached KD: agreed - ask both chair and team contacts. DD: The response should only take ~5 minutes to complete [Action Item for Karl to approach team contacts] [Action Item for Lofton to approach group chairs list] DD: Shall we set the due date for final text as August 15? DH: This date is ok for me DD: A one month deadline for groups to respond after we publish should be enough. We should use strong wording to encourage a response. LH: Agreed, though we can't mandate it because members are volunteers. 4) Review Assignments DD: I have to leave now. Please assign a review for me. LH: review matrix is more empty than full despite calls for volunteers. maybe we should volunteer people to fill the gaps? KD: Can we have a roll call now to see who has chosen yet? LH: Karl has some blanks Dom has some blanks What about David? should he be included? KD: Can we select different groups for each review? LH: Yes, but it may help to use the same groups DH: Should we review ourselves? LH: Good idea DH: OK I'll volunteer to review QA KD: The person doing the review should understand the topic of the spec if possible LH: Yes. For me CSS was harder than SVG because I had less knowledge KD: I propose that we ask people to choose by next week. And if they don't then a group is selected for them. DH: In that case we should give the person a week to appeal SM: What is the 'tdb' in the review matrix? LH: 'tbd' represents the date for completion. You must pick a date as well as a group. But we don't want all dates to coincide. We want to stagger them over major document versions. But I would like some feedback on the current version - in the next two weeks. SM: Will send URL for XML DH: Andrew has chosen HTML but there are many documents within that area - what should he do? AT: I'm interested in modularization KD: I recommend a joint review of Modularization and XHTML 1.1 AT: OK, I'll do that [Action Item for KD to choose review subjects for people who have not yet chosen] [Action Item for LH to ask David if he wants to participate in the review exercise] LH: The review matrix needs a 4th column with title 'Techniques assessment for a GL document' DH: Done - looks OK JM: Can we link the completed reviews - this would be helpful LH: OK, but they still need cleaning up before publishing so I can't do it immediately 5) Spec Guidelines document LH: In Montreal we decided that we would publish an interim version in August (before the major October publication date) because of the extra interest and resulting reorganisation of the document. We should aim to publish in week 2 or 3 of August so we must resolve the content in the next two weeks. We have one regular telcon and if necessary we can have an extra telcon. So we have a deadline to finalize majpr content details by (say) August 14. We have one major thing missing: a checkpoint-by-checkpoint priority review So next week we have to complete/endorse priorities Then, after publication Lynne will take back ownership. AT: Is the deadline realistic? LH: what do people think? AT: Yes with the caveat that we sort out the distinction between levels, modules and profiles. I'm confused by this and I think spec authors will be too. LH: Yes, we have inherited a choatic legacy from the W3C specs. But it's starting to converge. We have to address the reality of what W3C has produced and what our ideal is. SM: I agree with Andrew. Reviews can help here also. We need 1 or 2 more reviews for this version. [SM leaves] LH: This does seem to be a significant issue KD: It would be better if we have more input from editors LH: Should we postpone your (Karl's) issues discussion today? KD: let's put it to the end of the agenda LH: So is SpecGL close enough given that we only have 2 weeks? KD: It has good features but sometimes as an editor who will have to use it I think that it will be difficult to implement. We should have a manual! As an editor I may not be sure whether I am supposed to use a feature or not. JM: Based on past experience I think we will need that extra telcon LH: Yes, probably. We could manage 3 telcons in August: 6th, 13th, 21st? - that leaves 10 days in the month for editing. KD: Should ExTech be published at the same time? This may be difficult because it requires a stable SpecGL. LH: No problem there, ExTEch can wait. KD: yes - wait for SpecGL stablity [Discussion of KD's SpecGL comments follows] KD: #1 Define what we mean by a table of content entry - where does it lie?, what form? etc Sometimes it if not clear if text should be included in the ToC. Should work with Susan Lesch on this. LH: Have you seen the new draft - I tried to reflect last week's comments about that in checkpoint 3.2, 3.4 etc - by adding a 'not applicable' qualifier. A spec must say something about profiles for example so that should always have an entry The actual wording tries to address Karl's issue. Karl - is this sufficient for the next public draft? KD: Seems fine - but in XHTML for example sometimes the ToC does not contain all links. It's possible to have an entry on one page that is not in the ToC. [looking at XHTML 1.0, comparing sections with ToC - this example challenges the ToC definition] LH: Given the new text do we need to go further? KD: It's better LH: Look at (SpecGL 2002/07/29) GL 8, ckpt 8.5 - are these detailed enough for the next draft? KD: I will it review it later today - seems to be ok [ LH invites everyone to see if the vatious ToC-related checkpoints are suitable for publication in the next draft version ] KD: #2 Clarify modules and levels LH: Sandra and Andrew also flagged this - we should deal with this by email KD: #3 ?? [KD comment not recorded] LH: In GL 3, 4 and 7 - have put a 'not applicable' qualifier (except on ToC checkpoints) KD: Fine, this addresses my comment KD: #4 When people start a new technology - I don't know if they will be considering levels at the start. LH: Checkpoint 7.1 tries to capture this KD: OK LH: See David Marton's email about mods and levels http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2002Jul/0014.html One case is a high precision level and low precision level designed in from the start. Don't think we have an example of this in W3C? KD: What, a first edition of a standard that defines levels? Not sure. DH: DOM level 1 - this appeared just before PR version, but not in the first working draft LH: CSS didn't predict levels either. So, is Checkpoint 7.1 ok for now KD: I will review it and confirm LH: Generally, we have to clarify levels/modules/profiles Next meeting is next Wednesday, on the regular schedule. We can also expect an extra telcon to discuss the current draft of SpecGL --- Adjourned --
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2002 10:15:42 UTC