DRAFT minutes: QA WG Teleconference 25 April 2005

QA Working Group Teleconference

Monday, 25 April 2005

 

Scribe: Lynne

 

Attendees:

(TB) Tim Boland (NIST)

(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)

(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)

(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, Chair)

(DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C)

(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO)

(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST)

(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

 

Regrets:

(RK) Richard Kennedy (Boeing)

 

Absent:

 

Summary of New Action Items: 

AI-20052504-01: Karl to draft umbrella specification text:  26 April 2005

AI-20052504-02: Dimitris to add SVG Tiny, re-sort table, add introduction:
28 April 2005

 

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Apr/0105.html
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Apr/0105.html> 

Previous Telcon Minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Apr/0106.html
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Apr/0106.html> 

 

Minutes:

1) Roll call

2) Routine Business

Dublin F2F: no new information at this time regarding logistics

 

3) GP as optional features: [1] Lofton's proposal

Good Practices were considered informative, but agreement to change GPs to
be considered normative, optional.  Lofton's drafted a proposal (subject
line blank).  Proposal includes definitions of normative and informative,
definitions that were in previous version of SpecGL.  Agree with proposed
changes. 

 

Item C., Lofton to find email with suggested wording, so editors can make
appropriate change. 

 

Item D, boilerplate wording of RFC 2119.  SpecGL recommends uppercase or
bold.  Should we follow this advice?  SpecGL currently uses lowercase, no
distinctive formatting. Karl to implement specific markup for MUST and make
it visible (bold).  

 

Item J.  Defined label: "specification guidelines conformant", but never use
this label.  Editors need to incorporate the label into the section on
conformance claims.  Put into SpecGL conformance claim template.

 

Glossary terms.  Review glossary to make sure all terms in the document are
also in the glossary.  This needs to be done, but is deferred until after
publication of next working draft.  

 

4) Draft Answer Reviews (Karl, Dom, Patrick)

Karl has a few to do, Lynne and Richard need to do theirs.  Dom has
integrated all the drafts he has received.  Accept reviews that have been
sent to mailing list.  Lofton still has a few more to do. 

 

5) SpecGL issues: 1148 [2], 1149 [3]

1148.  Accept. Drop example

1149.  Accept new prose. 

 

6) Variability in Specification publishing

Text for umbrella specification needs to be improved and include discussion
that was on this topic.  Volunteer: Karl

Since there is a link in SpecGL, we need to republish this document. It
would be best to have new text on umbrella specification done in time for
republication.   It is O.K. to put in draft text that has not been fully
reviewed by the WG.  Goal is to publish at same time as SpecGL. 

 

Additional text needed for: explaining the different categories and address
discretionary items.  Karl to ask Dave Marston to draft text. 

 

7) SpecGl Implementation Report  [4]

Dimitris has drafted a preliminary report. Still need to do ICS for SVG
Tiny.  Provides an excellent summarized review.  At top, need to indicate
all the specifications that are included in the Tables.  Suggest reordering
the table (sort by date) to show that SpecGL has helped to improve
specification writing.   Should we do more?  Put current version in WG
space, so that we can link to it, showing we have a preliminary
implementation report.  If there are too many requirements or good practices
that have not been implemented - how should we handle these?  There are 2
implementations that have implemented everything (XML:id and SpecGL).  Put
SVG Tiny into table.   Any volunteers to review other specifications?
Silence.  Dom to publish on WG space when received from Dimitris. 

 

8) Publication status of Test FAQ

Can we announce this?  Thank you to Patrick on a job well done. Patrick
having it reviewed by a tech writer (doing quality review).  Will have it
done by end of the week.  Be prepared for comments - comments is a good
thing. 

 

Adjourn.

 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Apr/0099.html
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Apr/0099.html> 

[2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1148
<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1148> 

[3] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1149
<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1149> 

[4]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Apr/att-0100/SpecGLImpleme
ntationReport20050422.html
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Apr/att-0100/SpecGLImplem
entationReport20050422.html>