- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 14:38:04 -0500
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021104143501.01abf848@mailserver.nist.gov>
Please note that last week's (28 Oct) final minutes have not been published yet. ************************************************* QA Working Group Teleconference Wednesday, 4-November August-2002 -- Scribe: Lynne Attendees: (dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks) (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft) (DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster) (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair) (SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST) (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair) (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group) (DM) David Marston (guest) Regrets: (MS) Mark Skall (NIST) (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair) Absent: (JM) Jack Morrison (Sun) Summary of New Action Items: AI-20021104-1 Mark/Lynne to propose new text for ICS (CP 12.1) 5 Nov AI-20021104-2 Lofton to modify Lynne’s TOC proposal 5 Nov AI-20021104-3 Lofton to add an issue on navigation mechanisms must work in hardcopy versions. AI-20021104-4 Lofton to add an issue on rewording DM’s proposed CP 6.5 AI-20021104-5 Peter to draft a new rationale for CP 3.1 4 Nov AI-20021104-6 Lofton to add an issue on making CP 7.4 more generic to cover consumers and producers AI-20021104-7 AI-20021104-8 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/0013.html Previous Telcon Minutes: Draft http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Oct/0146.html Minutes: 1.) roll call, membership 2.) OpsGL publication topic(s) LH provided an explanation of changes made to OpsGL. Basically, the document was reformatted to be similar to SpecGL and the CP wording was tighten, but remained basically the same with respect to its meaning. There were no objections to using this version as the basis for publication on 8 Nov. Request people look at the @@ and email comments. These @@ items will be addressed after publication. 3.) Spec Guidelines To be published: Nov 8. Discussion of problems/issues. CP 12.1 ICS checkpoint. This was discussed last week (28 Oct). Mark and Lynne to draft clarification and send to DH by 5 Nov. Issue 69, DoV excessive variability is bad. LH concerned that there is no longer a warning at the beginning of each DoV guideline. The only warning that excessive variability is bad is only in the introduction. DH said this was O.K., since it is addressed in other ways in each DoV Guideline. TOC proposal. Lynne sent a proposed new TOC checkpoint to take the place of all the current TOC checkpoints and to put this new CP in Guideline 13. Email responses from LH, DM, and Alex suggested that the CP needed to be more explicit. LH suggests adding a minimal list of what needs to be addressed in the ‘To fulfill…’ DM also had suggestions of what to add. LH to modify the proposal, including a list of minimal items. DH not sure we should go into that much detail about the navigation at this time. DM suggest adding a requirement that you can find the information in the hardcopy rendition. LH to add issue that navigation mechanism must work in hardcopy versions. G1. Removed use case sentence as suggested by AT. GL6 proposal. LH seeks agreement that this is guideline is a catch-all and is what we want for the Guideline. DM suggests moving the guideline to become guideline 3 and as guideline 3, the explanation is sufficient and we don’t need to say this is a catch-all guideline. LH thinks the proposed wording is too limiting. DM submitted a new CP 6.5. It was agreed that GL6 will be replaced with DM’s proposal and become guideline 3 (shifting the current GL by 1). LH will open a new issue on rewording 6.5. dd leaves. (45 min. after meeting start) CP 2.2: LH does not understand what we are trying to say. This is similar to negative disclaimer of DoV. Either remove sentence or clarify what we mean. DH suggests remove it. Agreed. CP 3.1 Peter agreed to draft a new Rationale and email it today. CP 7.2 Lynne submitted new CP text. DM wasn’t clear on whether the new text was intended to be the whole CP or just a substitute for the first half of the CP. LR said, the whole CP and that the details, including the specifying the conformance consequences is in the ‘To fulfill…” DH apply the proposal to the document CP 7.4 Applicability of CP to class of product DH questions whether this CP applies just to producers and not consumers. Discussion by LH, DM, and PF indicating they think it would also apply to consumers. A SMIL example was give. PF will send comments later today, regarding how this can apply to consumers. Getting back to what this CP actually says, DH asks if it is O.K. to have a CP that addresses mainly producers. Does there also need to be a parallel CP for consumers? DH prefers a CP that captures both consumers and producers. LH to add an issue on making CP 7.4 more generic. LH suggest next time, we should cover issues in backwards order, since we always run out of time before we finish the list. In particular, he wanted to discuss guideline 9, on which he previously sent comments. He will continue the discussion via email. Adjourn 5 minutes after the hour.
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 14:44:41 UTC