- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:52:03 -0600
- To: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Olivier, At 11:01 AM 10/24/02 +0900, you wrote: >QA Working Group and Interest Group participants. > >Here are the minutes for the last face-to-face meeting: >http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/10/f2f-minutes These are extraordinarily good! I'm afraid that you have raised the bar too high, and only you will be able to live up to this quality level in the future! [Coming to Seattle? ;-) ] >The document is still under discussion and review by participants of the >meeting, therefore some clarifications/additions are likely to be done. In >such case, I will inform the list. We have sorted out issue #91 a bit: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/10/f2f-minutes#x91 Here is what we agreed was discussed, what was decided, and what was not decided at Tokyo (made complex by at least two issues getting entwined in the discussion): ==== start Issues List excerpt ===== Discussed at Tokyo face-to-face, closed with resolution: replace "items" with "choices" in statement of checkpoint; and, implementations must do the same things in the same conditions. Further details of Tokyo discussion: Checkpoint addresses specifically discretionary choices - e.g., choice one of a,b,c - not discretionary items in general. Users should be able to count on getting the same thing under same conditions. If conditions have changed, then maybe you're not going to get same behavior - may not always be possible to have the same conditions - e.g., cache changes, network changes (recognize that requirement might be useless in some environments.) There is a possible inter-related issue which is not addressed by this resolution: consistent treatment of groups of discretionary choices. If "A or B" is a discretionary choice applicable to several different circumstances within the specification -- e.g., two possible responses to a collection of several different error conditions -- then should specifications treat these consistently as a group. Resolution: Keep CK8.4; replace "items" with "choices" in statement of checkpoint; and, specifications must state that given identical conditions, the effect of a discretionary choice is consistent within a single implementation. ===== end ===== What is different: 1.) in place of an action item on Lynne (current minutes), we have extracted and stated what we believe was the Tokyo-agreed resolution. I emphasize that we think the newly stated "resolution" is in fact what we agreed at Tokyo, not a change to it. 2.) we have tried to clarify the record of the messy threads of the discussion. I will leave it to your discretion and the WG's, whether to amend the minutes. IMO, the above stuff after "Further details of Tokyo discussion" could replace the current minutes' "Discussion"; and the above-stated "Resolution" could be appended after the simple "Closed" in the minutes. -Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 24 October 2002 18:52:00 UTC