Minutes Crete F2F day 2 PM

For your comments



Minutes day 2 (17/6/2003) PM

Scribe: Dimitris Dimitriadis

Action Items:
AI-20030617-xx MS to develop test assertions for Test GL, by September 1
AI-20030617-xx LH to ask Ian Jacobs for clarification regarding LC29.4 
by email, due 20030620
AI-20030617-xx DH to ask Ian Jacobs why he doesn't want to use RFC 
keywords and in case there are good reasons go for the mapping, due 


Spec GL Last Call issues for test assertions

issue 13

AI to develop test assertions fo Test GL, completed by September 1 


issue 14:

dm: providing means to have a link from the specification to a separate 

lr: need to include in the explanation of the checkpoint that they can 
be provided either in the document or by reference.

Clarify this in the terminology.

Editors will add something to this effect.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Jun/0022.html (Test 
assertions and conformance requirements)

point 3:

pc: identifying and labelling is necessary

lh: 6 terms in use, the only one defined is "test assertion"

lr: someone needs to draft the definition of "conformance requirement"

necessary or recommended optional conditions for conformance to the 

AI to ask Ian for clarification regarding LC29.4, will send email 
(Lofton), due 20030620

Issue 65 (done)

Issue 67

lh: conformance requirements do not have to use 2119 keywords. testable 
statements is undefined.

dm: if there are good reasons, provide mapping between RFC keywords and 
the conformance requirements

AI: ask Ian who he doesn't want to use RFC keywords and in case there 
are good reasons go for the mapping (DM), 20030624

issue 73.9

top definition goes into the main glossary

We'll make our definitions consistent.

issue 75.9 (closed)

issue 106 (resolved)

issues 102, 104, 105


merge GL3 and GL10

move current 10.2 into GL13

move ckpoint 11.1 into GL10

merge GL11 and GL12

resolution: reorder the guidelines with the current numbers to be GL13, 
GL10+GL3, GL11+GL12

levels of conformance: agreement to add wording explaining that 
prioritites 1-3 are included to progressively go from good to better to 
best as far as qualitative assessment is concerned

GL 2.3: now conforms since we added a new specification category

GL 2.4: we agree there is only one class

GL 3.3: we have two DOV, we agreed to do an editorial change to conform 
to GL3.3

GL 8.1: priority 2 or 3 is by definition discretionary (prio 2 only 
discretionary items in relation to level A conformance)

lr: all things in GL4 are discretionary

we need redefine by "indicating the rational for discretonary items"

AI rewrite 8.1 (mark), 20030630

meeting adjourned 17.45

Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 03:36:12 UTC