- From: Andrew Thackrah <andrew@opengroup.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:32:24 +0100
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
DRAFT QAWG Face-to-Face meeting minutes The Open Group, Reading, UK Wednesday 27 October, 13:30 - 16:30 pm UCT Topic: QA Handbook Subject: distinction between Principles and Good Practices LH reply to LR: LR: also confusion between principles & good practices. principles ate not normative in handbook. but in SpecGL they are normative LH: don't want this inconsistency will be an issue. See my reply (sent Sunday) - I gave an explanation. DH: we also say that we should try to be consistent with other terminolgies - so some consistency wouldn't hurt LR: So identify what is mandatory & what is not LH refers to IRC ... I said am in favor of explanation in QAH. QAH prob. going to be used standalone and not with a GL as a side reference. KD: is there really a diff between Principles & Good Practice in the QAH? LH: initially I was using Principles as replacement for Guidelines, Good Practice as specific actionable details (like a checkpoint). LR: in specGL Principles are actionable items (in addition to Good Practices) KD: in specGL we define as a principle that we should not redefine terms LH: ok I rename principles = guidelines & GP = checkpoints...(!) LH: I agree that we should rename things - not sure what though. [strong feeling that meanings should be consistent] LH: I'd like to find a separate name for principles [action - LH to propose a new name] - everything else to be named 'good practices'. Subject: Principles & Good Practice statement are too long - should we make them shorter - declarative LH: keep them imperitive LR: my problem : they are too long LH: 2/3 of statments are one line or less (viewed in browser). Others could be shorter... [Action LH - break down larger statements, or make them [Action - LH make sub topics inside Good Practice have consistent names between QAH & SpecGL] resolved that it's ok to leave out a section if nothing to put under a given topic [Action - KD to verify that doc maps onto template] Subject: quality-related deliverables & "test materials" - relationship LH: this topic has a history - comment from someone in May draft - about fuzzy terms. We flagged all such terms. Mark & Dave worked on this. Also JC criticized that our scope is tilted towards test suites. Agree that there is still a problem [Action - KD to review the definitions] [Action DH - synch markup in QAH with SpecGL] Subject: difficult to navigate in QAH - no numbering scheme LH: don't like the numbering scheme in specGL [to be discussed later as an issue in specGL - accessibility issue] [conclusion - numbering scheme for QAH: sequential] [Action - LH to propose a numbering scheme for QAH] [Action - DH to check the legal section of QAH against current policies] Topic: Publication schedule last call in 2 weeks feedback to the end of january will we have a meeting in Boston? (in tech plenary) DH: wondering if it was worth having a meeting before then - at start of Jan. - would do that unless we have been dismantled. LH: dependency - php form processor. to be done by mid-Nov. be shouldn't delay publication Agree on publication before moratorium (Nov 18) What to do about references to (suspended) testGL? KD proposal: PC to produce a simpler text - a note that deals with test topics. PC: prefer to focus on the text, single effort - not collaborative - then ok DH: initial soln: remove refs from QAH. Then next cycle - produce a note to condense test GL [agreement] [Action - PC to produce a 1st version of the test note, in 4 weeks] ---------- Topic: QAF Primer [Action - DH to rewrite with focus on making more usable & readable, due Nov 25] (KD & LR to review the work) LH: think it's important to preserve placeholder to testGL/collected test-based material ---------- adjourned for break-out groups
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:30:38 UTC