Final Minutes of QA WG teleconf 2004-11-24

QA Working Group Teleconference
Wednesday, 24November 2004
Scribe: (DH) Dominique Haza√ęl-Massieux (W3C)

(TB) Tim Boland (NIST)
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, Chair)
(DH) Dominique Haza√ęl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO)
(RK) Richard Kennedy (Boeing)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

(DM) David Marston (IBM, guest)

(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

Previous Telcon 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
 ... 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;
 ... no reply received yet; I asked a set of Working Groups for a formal
 ... 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
 ... 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:
 ... 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
 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
 Tim: also, not clear whether we speak only about conformance vs
 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
 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
 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

 next week meeting:
 regrets from dom, all others should be able to attend
Dominique Haza√ęl-Massieux -

Received on Thursday, 2 December 2004 13:45:55 UTC