SpecGL Topics for 2003-10-15 (tomorrow)

Hi all,

Our comments period on the latest version of specGL [1] came to its end
on September 26; I have gathered the feedback that we got on it in
specGL DoC:
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/09/SpecGL-DoC
The goal of tomorrow meeting is to address the remarks that have been
raised during this period, so that we can request CR for specGL.
Besides the 2 objections regarding security in/out of scope of specgl
(by Alex Rousskov) and accessibility in/out of scope of specgl (by Jon
Gunderson), the following points have been raised:
- CP 1.2 is still vague for Ian Jacobs: 
"""
I disagree that my comment was accepted with modifications since the
checkpoint has not changed. I will not object to the document moving
forward, but I believe you will find readers asking the question "How do
I know when I've satisfied the checkpoint? What is enough for
conformance?"
"""
- our resolution of the normative content wrt glossary definitions
didn't fully satisfied Ian either:
"""
  The WGs response seems to avoid the question. Terms that are used in
(normative) requirements that are defined in the glossary (i.e., where
the English language meaning may not suffice) should probably also be
normative. Some terms in the glossary may not be normative, but those
whose definitions affect conformance should be normative
"""
- the different definitions of test assertions in SpecGl and the QA
Glossary still troubles Leonid Arbouzov:
"""
one comment on the issue LC-73.9: the definition of a term "assertion"
seems still different in SpecGL and in the QA Glossary; It would be good
to bring the SpecGL definition in accordance with definition in the QA
Glossary
"""

The goal is to work on these issues during tomorrow teleconf, and get
consensus on moving to CR when done. 

Dom

1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030912/
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org