- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:09:57 -0700
- To: 'www-qa-wg@w3.org' <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
QAWG -- Please review and send comments and corrections... ---------- QA Working Group Teleconference Monday, 21 February 2005 -- Scribe: Lofton Attendees: (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG chair) (DH) Dominique Hazaƫl-Massieux (W3C) (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO) (RK) Richard Kennedy (Boeing Commercial Airplanes) Regrets: (DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) (MS) Mark Skall (NIST) (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair) (TB) Tim Boland (NIST) Absent: (PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems) Summary of New Action Items: [Format: AI-YYYYMMDD-N Who What (DEADLINE) ] AI-20040221-1 -- Karl -- look for an example of GP 1.2C (due: 2005-02-28) AI-20040221-2 -- Karl -- propose numbering solution (due: 2005-02-28). Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Feb/0040.html Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Feb/0028.html Minutes: Due to low attendance, we decided to work on easy, editorial issues. All bug references may be found starting at [1]. Issue #983: The issue as stated is a hybrid of 1.2A, B, C. There really isn't any "ICS claim" in SpecGL. Karl will clarify. (AI to Karl: look for an example of GP 1.2C (2005-02-28).) Some discussion about whether we have to drop 1.2C if we can't find an example. WCAG almost goes all the way: it has wording for conformance claim, and it has an ICS (checklist), but it doesn't combine a reference to ICS into conformance claim wording. Issue #990: Karl proposes that it is old and probably closed. Issue #1052: Discussion about the definition only. Lofton questioned what was meant or implied by "to which it has been determined", and pointed out that it invites the question "by whom and when is it determined"? Was this a conscious attempt to put some waffle wording into the definition in order to appease XML Core's comment? Agreed to change to, "to which the WG has determined". We'll wait until more people are present to tackle the issue itself. Issue #1043: Karl agreed to change the prose. Closed. Issue #1087: Closed per Lynne's suggestion. Issue #1050: (Modesty requirement.) Defer until more people are present to look at Dom's analysis and Lofton's comment. Issue #1058: Confusing section numbering. Karl takes AI to propose numbering solution (2005-02-28). Issue #1060: Dom wanted to clarify about previous minutes, who was to do the AI (@@ scribe missed here ... what AI?@@. Agreed it is Karl's (not Dom's). Telecon closed 11:55am EST. References [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?regetlastlist=1
Received on Monday, 21 February 2005 19:10:16 UTC