Karl's AI from Minutes F2F, Reading Friday AM

Lynne, question(s) for you below.


Le 29 oct. 2004, à 08:31, lsr@nist.gov a écrit :
> Minutes: QAWG Friday 29 October, AM
> Scribe: Lynne
> Topic SpecGL Review Techniques and Examples
> ACTION: Karl to do consistency check of terms, including ToC

done.

> 1.1A: Techniques are all part of 1 technique.
> T. Use the template to create the conformance clause
> Step - complete the template and put the result into the specification
> Step: Create an item in the ToC
> If your technology – put as a subitem in above Step

done.

> 1.1B
> ACTION: Karl to redraft and draw the diagram for Ruby

done.

> 1.1C
> 3 is too long, break into steps
> 4 Know what part of the spec is normative/informative.  Then Label the 
> sections
> and/or put in the conformance clause the way you define the 
> normativity.
> 5 more about how to specify conformance requirements.  Move to 3.2A

done

> 1.2C
> 1. Replace.
> 2. refer to 1.2A, be sure that your conformance claim reference 1.2A 
> references
> the completed template 1.2B.  Explain how the ICS is referenced.

Lynne: Is it the *new* wording for the second technique. I'm not sure 
about it.

> 2.1B
> Technique of the previous GP.
> Make new technique = write simple direct statements, and take these 
> techniques
> as examples of what is meant.
> ACTION: Lynne to do the merge

2.1B removed. done.

> 2.1C
> separate techniques.  Make bullets.
> Combine 2,3,4,5 – Provide examples for: with 2,3,4,5 as subbullets.
> Example 2 – remove 2nd paragraph. Revise 1st paragraph.
> ACTION: Karl

done.

> 2.2A
> 3 – describe them as part of the scope.
> Steps of 1 technique
> Too many examples. Keep MathML, SMIL, Ruby

done.

> 3.1A
> 1 not really technique, move to what does this mean.
> Add technique to use markup to define terms – helps to create glossary
> ACTION: Karl

done.

> 3.1B
> Need to be consistent in terms – forms, flavors, type of conformance, 
> etc.
> 2 – expand to say, that the label is clearly confined.  Have a summary 
> of the
> labels of conformance with the name and definition
> ACTION: Karl consistency check of terms

There was
	4 type(s) of conformance
	3 flavor(s) of conformance
	4 form(s) of conformance

So I have modified all of them to type(s) of conformance
done.

> 3.1C
> remove editor notes.  Dom to modify link

done

> 3.2A
> 2 is sub-bullet of 1
> remove  <>
> 3 descriptive style – need a unique and uniform way to define the 
> conformance
> requirements.  What ever way you choose, stick to it.

done

> ACTION: Karl to define a kind of stylistic template for the conformance
> requirements

todo

> 3.2B
> Change Explain to Indicate (designate)
> Decided not to add negative technique:  Don’t rely on style to convey
> mandatory/optional. Avoid reliance on style formatting only – causes
> accessibility problems
> 2 – not clear.  Remove. This means group like requirements – e.g., 
> group all
> the should requirements together, all the must requirements, etc., 
> then put
> them into modules – that map to degrees of conformance.

done. I put a delete on the 2. if it's still what we want.

> 4.1B
> adjust the bullets – make steps

done

> 4.1C
> adjust the bullets – make steps

done

> 4.2A
> ACTION: Karl to fix example wording

Lynne: hmmm There's no example. Did it mean find an example?


> 4.2B
> Change title to indicate optional features.
> Add more techniques if we can think of them
>
> ACITON: Karl Remove CSS2 example – may confuse people

done. techniques of ex-4.2C added here.

> 4.2C
> Remove GP and distribute into other GPs.
> ACTION: Karl

done

> 4.2D
> Move above 4.2B

done

BE CAREFUL:    ***Renumbered 4.2A to 4.2C***
	4.2A -> 4.2A
	4.2B -> 4.2C
	4.2C -> Suppressed
	4.2D -> 4.2B

> 4.3A
> explain what is meant by specification
> In technique – Change extensions topic to extensibility.  Call it 
> ‘extension’

Lynne, WG: todo: Explain at the start of Specification Guidelines the 
notion of specification and specification umbrella and put the 
graphics. I guess in the scope?

rest done

> 4.3B
> Technique is to create a template for extensions
> Some of these are techniques not steps.  What should one do with these
> questions.  Change questions into direct techniques.
>
> Remove examples: mechanism defined as conformance rules – don’t think 
> it adds
> anything to have this category.
>
> ACTION: Karl to rework
> ACTION: Karl to review all techniques with questions

done

> 4.4B
> 2 - degree of support
> Distinguish between producers and consumers.
> P = Define how deprecated feature is handled by each class of product.
> Technique -  typically we expect consumers (user agent) behave no 
> differently,
> producers (author tool, complier) would issue error or flag.
> ACTION: Dom to rewrite

waiting :)

> 4.4C
> 2 – remove
> 1 – editorial.  Keep only 1st sentence
> 3 - remove
> ACTION: Dom

Dom: I have done the things, but you may want to change again.


> 5.2C
> 1 – remove open source or commercial. Encourage the development of 
> proofs of
> concept implementations of the technology.
> 2 – change to provide at least one example of the feature, which may 
> also be
> used as the basis of a future test case.
> 4 – unclear. Reword Create a template for new feature proposals that 
> includes a
> request for associated test cases.

done


> 5.2D
> What does this mean.  Contained within or derived from the 
> specification
> 2 – reword like 4 above
> 3 – make first.
> 1 – follows 3, which is a clarification of the new 1

done.





-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***