- From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:19:34 -0700
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QA Working Group Teleconference Monday, 11-August-2003 ------------------------------- Scribe: Patrick Curran Attendees: (PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems) (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair) (DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C) (SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST) (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair) (VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems) Observers: (DM) Dave Marston (IBM) Regrets: Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks) Mark Skall (NIST) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group) Absent: Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) Summary of New Action Items: AI-20030811-1 LR will modify the scope section of SpecGL to indicate what will be covered in future revisions. Due 20030825. Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Aug/0027.html Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Aug/0007.html Minutes: 1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership 2.) Any routine business - AI status for: WCAG 2.0 reply [1]? PC summarized his response to Wendy. In addition to conformance testing her message addressed testing their guidelines, the promotion of implementation testing, and the utilization of feedback from the implementation process to improve their guidelines. LR agrees that we need to address the process of testing to refine the spec rather than to refine the implementation. XSL-FO developed test suite for this purpose. PC: Jeremy Carroll's comments on TestGL re waterfall model raise similar questions - we will address these during next week's telecon. Is it appropriate for this group to address these broader testing issues or should we focus narrowly on conformance-testing? LR: yes - in the early stages we need more than conformance testing - should provide feedback into refining spec. PC: feedback loops are important. We agreed to consider this topic, and discuss later, either in email or at next week's teleconference. - XHTML Print Last Call Review (7-sep) [0] No volunteers. - Boulder hotels (1 or 2 blocks?) [2b] LR: blocks of rooms will be reserved in both hotels. - Boulder attendee requirements [2a] LR summarized the facilities that will be available. We'll have a group dinner one evening. She reminded us of the need to provide our personal info for security checking. [- overdue Action Items ] Not addressed. 3.) WAI (JG) negative on DoC - discussion thread [3] LR summarized discussions with Jon Gunderson about his concerns re accessibility being addressed in recs. We have responded saying that we don't think this is our responsibility - should be addressed at a higher level. He doesn't agree. KD: we made the right choice. If we try to cover everything (all requirements) we will fail. LR agrees: this would water down the QA stuff. This is a slippery slope: we would have to add I18N, device-independence, etc. PC agrees: it's not our job to tell people what to test, just how. Daniel is discussing this with Judy Brewer. The WAI will discuss at a conf-call this week. 4.) Any SpecGL topics (contingency placeholder) [At DM's request, this topic was discussed first (he had to leave early).] LR summarized SpecGL LC issue 29.3 from Ian Jacobs: "It might be valuable for a specification to explain how to include its requirements in another specification add something to address how specs can reference other specs". Our response is that we would postpone this for a future revision of the doc. LH and LR are working on wording for this. Do we think it's OK to include in the status or scope section of SpecGL a statement that this version covers just the basics, and that a future version will contain more detail? General agreement that this would be a good idea, and that this belongs in the scope section. LR took an AI to make the necessary change within two weeks. 5.) Adjourn at 11:30.
Received on Monday, 11 August 2003 14:20:34 UTC