- From: Sandra Martinez <sandra.martinez@nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:37:42 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QA Working Group Teleconference Monday, 21-October-2002 -- Scribe: Sandra I. Martinez Attendees: (dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)- (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair) (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) (JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)-permanet regret (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair) (MS) Mark Skall (NIST) (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group) Regrets: None Absent: None Summary of New Action Items: A-2002-10-21-1: Kirill to send license information to Lofton. A-2002-10-21-2: Lofton to discuss the license with Joseph Reagle. A-2002-10-21-3: Lofton to get concrete proposal for issue 59 for next telecon. A-2002-10-21-4: Mark and Lynne to work on issue 93. Guideline 9 and checkpoints. Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Oct/0101.html Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Oct/0096.html Minutes: 1.) roll call 2.) OpsGL issues (LH) [0] -- at least #60, #59 -- maybe #32 (probably not) Issue 60 -- What are the QA commitments and responsibilities of existing Working Groups? Lofton proposed option 4; to remove "In the charter" from statement of GDs and CKs, add treatment new/old of to conditional test requirements within CKs (and discuss in Extech). They are applicable to every one. Everyone agreed on implementation of option 4. Issue is resolved per option 4. Next public draft of Ops Guidelines will reflect changes. Issue 59 - postpone until next week. Lofton will draft proposal to be discussed in the next telcon. Issue 49 -- Should there be a global (W3C-standard) license for use and distribution of test materials? This issue is relevant to test and Ops Gl. Issue was closed with Kirill contribution (distributed paper form at Montreal). Kirill will send electronic copy to Lofton. Lofton will discuss the license with Joseph Reagle. 3.) SpecGL stuff (DHM), probably one or more of: -- see Friday emails from Dom in archive [1] -- new SpecGL draft [2] -- draft proposed Intro [3] DH - Before starting the SpecGL issues, he stated that the DOV discussion raised in an email thread would not be included in the Nov 6 version of the document. DoV discussion should continue via email and perhaps in a later telcon. Issue 93: Why register extensions? DH: not sure why we need to go into so much detail, there is too many constraints on extensions. Asking for more clarification on this issue and what are the benefits. Lofton - Lynne wrote this section. Guideline 9. This came up in a comment on an IRC thread during the summer. Ckpt. only applies to some kind of specifications in a limited context. Mark was not clear about the objection. DH answered by asking what are the benefits for having the extensions. Mark volunteered to work on it with Lynne. Lofton wants to make sure 9.3 will no go away. Mark and Lynne will revisit guideline 9 and the checkpoints and provide appropriate redraft. Ckpt. 10.2: "Make normative reference to specifications on which the current specification depends" What do we mean by dependence? Isn't normative reference the only way to set up dependence any way? DH suggested to keep checkpoint as is but to define more precisely what we mean with "dependence". Lynne will clarify the definition of "dependence". She was thinking alone the line that a specification might need another technology in order to work correctly. Ckpt. 10.3: Follow Web Accessibility Initiative and Internationalization Guidelines." Do we really want to get on the business to make other GL apply? Is this within the scope of the SpecGL? Lofton stated that Pubrules and Style Manual are mentioned in the Introduction, as other documents needing attention in addition to SpecGL, and WAI and Internationalization could be handled similarly. Lynne recommended the deletion of this checkpoint and the modification of the introduction section to include more information in this particular area. Editors will draft appropriate text for the introduction. Deviations from the agenda; DH, asked for comments in the introduction section of the SpecGL. Lynne, requested the WG to send comments on the introduction section. Lofton added that the group should also look at the @@ in the SpecGL by midweek. He commented that in the process of rewriting the SpecGL, guidelines 14 is collapsing with GL-15, therefore removing the granular grammar related checkpoints. The relationship between automatic generation and granular grammar is lost. Loftton move the information related to granular grammar to an appendix so it would not be lost. Dimitris volunteered to generate appropriate writing on the subject. Ckpt. 12.1: "If an ICS is included as part of the specification, indicate whether it is a normative or informative part of the specification." How an ICS can be normative? To what class of product would it apply? Lofton agreed with DH on the comment that ICS can't be normative. Lynne explained that the inclusion of an ICS is beneficial in claiming conformance especially for implementations that implement discretionary behaviors and values, for example XSLT specification where many options and choices are allowed. DH still not sure if the SpecGL should required ICS. Lofton added that SpecGL should require that specs not only have an ICS (if only a default sample), but also in principle could require that specs require those as part of the minimal content of a conformance claim. Andrew stated that he sees it at the role of the certification organization to have the ICS, so it would not belong in the SpecGL. It was suggested the checkpoint to be moved to the TestGL. Kirill agreed. Mark did not agree and added that requirements belong to the specification not to a test suite, and stated that the ICS does belong in the SpecGL. Lofton felt that this discussion was leading to reopening issue 96 and decided to take the discussion offline. --- Adjourned -- Sandra I. Martinez National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970, Gaithersburg, Md. 20899 (301) 975-3579 sandra.martinez@nist.gov
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 08:44:06 UTC