- From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:32:59 -0500
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1101994378.6297.3.camel@cumulustier>
QA Working Group Teleconference Wednesday, 24November 2004 -- Scribe: (DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C) Attendees: (TB) Tim Boland (NIST) (DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, Chair) (DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C) (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO) (RK) Richard Kennedy (Boeing) (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST) (MS) Mark Skall (NIST) (DM) David Marston (IBM, guest) Absent: (PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems) Summary of New Action Items: AI-20041124-1: KD to prepare a table of assignements for reviews of specifications by 2004-12-01 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Nov/0091.html Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Nov/0082.html Minutes: 2. Routine Business: karl: Technical Plenary in February ... we're set for Thu/Fri lofton: can't make Friday karl: we'll try to make it so the most interesting bits for lofton are on Thu ... is there any other specific group we would want to meet during the TP? ... for coordination, or outreach ... I asked reviews of SpecGL from specific groups Tim: I forwarded the request to WCAG and CSS WG ... they seemed interested! karl: note that TP will be after the LC review period Tim: for WCAG, this could be a good time to meet ... they'll start to work on Test Suites ... idem for CSS Karl: any other groups? send ideas by mail dom: we need to record our wishes in the WBS form karl: we can get back to this when discussing SpecGL promotion 3. QA Framework Specification Guidelines Review karl: annoucement sent; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2004OctDec/0064.html ... no reply received yet; I asked a set of Working Groups for a formal review ... including the TAG (important for coordination); there may be issues that fall between the TAG and the QA WG, and we should try to see which points are missing ... maybe we should meet with them at TP to exchange ideas on WebArch/SpecGL ... the CSS WG, CSS 2.1 and CSS3 are good use cases for SpecGL ... there are good opportunities for coordination Tim: you want me to get a specific agenda item on the CSS WG for reviewing specGL? karl: sounds great! Tim: what about WCAG? karl: sounds good too ... I also contacted the Compound Document Formats WG ... the Chair and Staff Contact are very focused on QA ... (we're actually working with them as part of our "QA in the field") ... I also asked the DI WG, but haven't heard back from them ... neither from HTML WG ... I18N is likely to be interested ... I just made a pretty negative review of SVG 1.2, so I'm hopeful they'll be interested in reviewing SpecGL ... SVG 1.2 review: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2004Nov/0437.html ... they don't meet any of our principles ... Some things are low-hanging fruits, but there is still work to do ... I haven't had answers from Timed Text WG, WAI P&F WG Tim: I did forward the announcement to that group karl: Haven't got an answered from XML Core, will re-ping them ... Also asked RDF DA WG; DanC chairs this group, and he had a lot of comments on previous versions of SpecGL ... Also, I asked Lynne whether she could get a review from Healthcare HL7 Lynne: I asked 2 persons there ... I'll to get some kind of feedback from them ... it may not be very specific, but still karl: I think it's good to show that the document is also useful outside of W3C Tim: what kind of review are you looking for? Lynne: indeed, do we want people to tell us whether they pass this or that? Tim: also, not clear whether we speak only about conformance vs education karl: 1st, the reviews should mention whether they think they indeed implement SpecGL ... 2nd, the quality and usability of SpecGL: what difficulties they have with the doc? What's missing? ... 3rd, what QA-related points are missing? topics that we didn't address David: also, what did the groups find missing in specs they tried to use (ie cite normatively) that made it harder for them dom: I think we should not lose the focus of last call: we need to get technical comments on SpecGL, ie whether they agree on what we're recommending and whether it's useful and accurate karl: if you have other ideas of WGs to contact, please forward them the announcement with details on the kind of reviews we want to get ... I'll track our issues in bugzilla 4. SpecGL Implementation Report karl: we need to gather reviews of technologies using SpecGL ... in the past, we did that by assigning reviews to the participants in the QA WG ... would it be OK that we re-do that, with me assigning specs by default to people in the group? ... the idea is to find whether SpecGL Req & GP are already implemented in existing W3C specs ACTION: karl to prepare a table of assignements for reviews of specifications by 2004-12-01 karl: for points that are not yet implemented (or not well enough), we need to be pro-active at getting implementations ... to ease this, it would be helpful for me to knwo which groups yo'ure following or participating in ... the strategy would not be to promote specGL as a whole; only mentioning SpecGL when specGL can help resovle an issue ... any other promotion plan? lynne: I think it makes sense ... although they aren't many of us participating in other groups Tim: I'm not sure to see what's the idea is karl: the idea is that if you're participating in a mailing list and see an issue that can be solved with SpecGL, mention it ... would helpful to have a list of people participatings in groups ... Lynne, could you send which groups NIST people participating in? Lynne: XML Schema, Core and Query David: I'm mostly watching XSLT and XML Query Tim: what's the due date for this? Karl: I'll put that in my table; we can discuss that next week ... what about you lofton? are you monitoring any ml? Lofton: I'm on the SVG ml ... but SVG is so busy that it's hard for me to follow karl: ok; if you have a change to push SpecGL from time to time... ... the point is really to help other WGs, not doing police 5. next week meeting: regrets from dom, all others should be able to attend -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2004 13:45:55 UTC