- From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>
- Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:35:47 -0700
- To: QAWG <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
QA Working Group Teleconference Monday, 21 April 2003 ------------------------------------ Scribe: Patrick Curran Attendees: (PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems) (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair) (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft) (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair) (SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST) Observing: (DM) David Marston Regrets: (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks) (DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C) (DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) (MS) Mark Skall (NIST) Absent: (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair) (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group) No new Action Items were assigned Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0167.html Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0203.html Minutes: 1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership 2.) future telecons proposal - one this week - two next week (wk. of 4/28) - one following week LH proposes SpecGL for the first meeting next week, OPsGL for the 2nd. 3.) Spec Guidelines [1] - Last Call SpecGL issues [3], groupings [4] - issue #67 [5] - DoV group (21, 66, ... 77.SG-1) from [4] [2] - Applicability/Normative exclusion (26, .., 80) from [4] - Extensibility group (15, 29.5, .., 101..) from [4] Discussion of Last Call issue 67. LH proposes postoponing discussion of 1st part of this issue. On 2nd portion - LH suggests a W3C Note - produced by us in collaboration with comm. PC: why is this a problem? LR: what's the real issue? Is it questioning our use of these terms, or is the submitter requesting further elaboration. LR: in checkpoint 13.1 (where we say you must use the RFC 2119 keywords) suggests add wording from ExTech document saying guidance is given for correct usage in the memo, and link to it. LH: in the response, we will also suggest the creation of a Note. Discussion of LH's DOV proposal [note 2] LH proposes a concepts chapter (chapter 2) in which we would clarify some of the issues around DOVs. DM and LR agree that such a restructuring would help. LR: many comments we've received are about concepts/terms that we have invented. We should explain them. LH: walks us through the proposed structure. Explanations of those DOVs that have caused confusion and raised issues will be provided here. Consensus: no need to explain those for which we have no issues. This will be followed by a section on relationships between DOV Discussion of the extent to which we should warn against DOV. LR: dividing the technology is a good thing, so don't over-warn. LH: having a discussion in this section, saying here are the benefits and the risks; each individual DOV can then point to this. Discussion of how individual Last Call issues are addressed by Lofton's proposal LC 95: is conformance policy a DOV? Agreed to discuss in email (this is the only DOV Last Call issue still open) LH: proposes we start next week's conference with discussion profiles, modules, levels, and that we discuss this topic via email in advance. 4.) Adjourn 5.) Overflow (12-12:30): available. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030210/ [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0158.html [3] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0105.html [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0153.html
Received on Sunday, 27 April 2003 23:07:55 UTC