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

DRAFT Minutes 2002-01-03 QA Working Group Teleconference

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:41:57 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101006b85a724ac5f1@[]>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QA Working Group Teleconference
Thursday, 3-January-2002
(DB) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)

(DD) Daniel Dardailler (W3C - IG co-chair)
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(DB) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SA) Selim Aissi (Intel)
(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)


(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(KH) Katie Haritos-Shea (NIST)
(OC) Oriol Carbo (U. of Edinburgh)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

*** Summary of New Action Items: ***

(from 2002-01-03 telcon)
A-2002-01-03-1 DB: modify the Matrix for the MathML Validator.
A-2002-01-03-2 KG: Write a Draft for Conformance clause and circulate 
it as a text on the www-qa-wg
A-2002-01-03-3 DD: Write an email about the model of the documents.

*** Previous Telcon Minutes: ***


*** Minutes: ***

1) Review action items list (brief -- just ascertain status).
Current open AI list from 12/20 minutes was circulated to WG [1].

(from 12-20 telcon)
A-2001-12-20-1: Lofton to reserve permanent time slot and ZAKIM bridge
A-2001-12-20-2: Lofton to initiate the Issues list by converting current
issues into the XML Grammar+XSLT
A-2001-12-20-3: Lofton, Kirill, Dimitris and All: further develop Proc&Ops
section 2.6 relationship with other WGs

(from 12-06 telcon)
A-2001-12-06-3: All: review documents: Ongoing. More feedback needed
A-2001-12-06-7: Dom, Karl, Olivier: web site re-org: Ongoing

(from Brussels)
A-2001-11-12-2: Olivier: unified glossary: Send email on status

A-2001-11-12-3: Karl, Daniel: QA glossary: Pending
A-2001-11-12-4: Kirill: Serialized Infoset pointer: In progress
A-2001-11-13-2: Max: MathML validator: Unkown
	Done. See new action item A-2002-01-03-1
A-2001-11-13-3: Karl: review of XML Fragment in Matrix: Unknown
A-2001-11-13-4, 5, 6, 7, 8: Karl: updates to Matrix: Unknown
	See Mail in the qa-wg
A-2001-11-13-10: Daniel: errata life after REC: Unknown
	See Mail
A-2001-11-13-11: Lofton, Kirill: collect technical data: Pending
A-2001-11-13-12, 13: Karl, Daniel: glossary and taxonomy: Unknown
	Closed. Moved to the issues list
A-2001-11-13-14: Olivier: glossary: Ongoing
A-2001-11-13-16: Daniel: check with other groups that model works: Unknown
A-2001-11-13-17: Lynne, Daniel: certification paper: Pending, sent to 
Daniel to progress
	Closed. Move to the issues list

2) Progressing Framework documents to FPWD
	- Intro, Procs&Ops, and Issues List posted on 1/2/02.
	- editors' status report:  minimally need minor editing, 
WCAG, pubrules.
	- straw poll: are they ready for FPWD with only minor editing?
	- schedule for FPWD

LH: Dimitris is staring to work on examples and techniques for 
guidelines, but will not be ready before the first WD publishing. 
Editors think that  there's a small amount of editing to do more. 
Olivier asks for proper markup on the documents themself. We need 
conformance, PubRules, etc.

LH: Poll for publishing the WD with minor editing or should we have 
major discussion on it.

DD: circulate the document to the IG list, and make another WD and 
publish this one. Publication for Tech Plenary.

DB: Same idea of Daniel, but asap to have more input from the public as large.

KG: Publish asap, publish it now

DH: Publish asap, to have more input from the public.

LH: Publish asap, inviting comments from the IG. but start moving to 
WD without waiting for answers to the comments.

LR: Review in another cycle in IG, and Publication.

dd: Publish asap

SA: OK for Editors opinions, but prefer a last chance for comments

MS: Quickest path, Publish asap.

OT: Using the time of editing modifications to have comments, but publish asap.

LH: A couple of weeks to work before publication.

dd: agreed

LH: From this meeting, count 3 weeks before first WD. Send a mail to 
the IG list and say we're going for Publication of the 1st WD.

DD: Comments from the IG and the public go to the IG list or to a 
specific list?

LH: It's a question.

DD: usually working group choose a mailing-list to deal with comments.

KG: Prefer people send the comments to the IG list to accelerate 
comments and replies.

dd: issues depending on the list?

DD: If you have a particular list, it's easier to track.

KG: in favor of IG list

DB: list for issue with a backup on IG.

DD: Problem with moderation. It's the choice of editors to have the 
choice of a mailing list. Let's start with a simple solution on IG 

dd: fine with the proposal of Daniel.

LH: Can you write a proposal for discussion about documents.

DD: very fuzzy proposal.

dd:  very complicated proposal.

DB: write a proposal for the process.

LH: 2/3 weeks before we could respond to comments.

dd: If we are starting to accept the comments we will not be able to 
integrate them in the doc in 2/3 weeks. We will be safer to have a 
firt public WD before going to the IG list and grab the comments for 
this document.

LH: - Announce avaibility of the document to the IG
	- Pointers for comments to the wg list
	- Move forward for publications.

3) Issue processing
	- FPWD critical-path issues first (see next message)
	- others as time permits

LH: Issue #26 what should be in the conformance list of such a document.

DD: the intro doc should have a conformance clause, but there's no 
real issue. For the checkpoints document, we should look at the WAI 
guidelines and see if we can do priority for QA documents.

LH: Can you do a brief draft and circulate it for the conformance clause.

KG: I can do that.

DD: We do not have priority but there are SHOULD, MAY, etc... 
*explanation of the WAI guidelines*.

KG: still an issue but will not be solved by the first pub.

LH: Yes will wait for the comments of the public.

DD: At minimum a unified document for checkpoints and guidelines.

LH: I'll ask to Ian to have comments on it.

DD: If we want to use a particular model, we should use the model of 
other specs.

LH: Guidelines and Checkpoints seem to be more an editorial issue.

KG: We can try.

LH: Write a mail to the list how the mail is broken.

4) any other topics?

* Status of the document

DD: we should call it as WD without saying if it will end up as a Note or Rec.

LH: Just use the WD templates. ok.

DD: Ask to Ian for details on the process.

* Issues list

LH: Look at the issues list, and comments them. Make a detailed review.

dd: It will be easier for me to take account of issues if they are 
commented by all people. So please read the document, comment the 
issues list and the document.

Adjourned 15:31
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2002 15:42:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:29 UTC