Re: Draft minutes of Jan 5, 2005 telecon

Hi Patrick,

Thanks for the timely draft minutes. A few comments/corrections below.

Le mercredi 05 janvier 2005 ŗ 16:11 -0800, Patrick Curran a ťcrit :
> 3) TAG-QA about Umbrella specification and Process Document

Karl pointed that he really meant "AB-QA" rather than "TAG-QA", so it's
probably worth fixing this in the minutes.

> KD has exchanged mail with Ian Jacobs re the W3C Process Document, pointing out that  
> the process doc deals only with individual documents (assuming that a technology
> can be and is defined in a single document) while it is an increasingly common 
> practice to define technologies through multiple documents/specifications.
> Ian has asked for specific examples of where this is a problem.
> KD: SVG 1.2 relies on previous version of SVG, but doesn't mention it

I think that Karl said something slightly different, that is that SVG
1.2 is only defined as a diff to 1.1, which is really not a good way to
define a technology on its own. Karl, can you confirm, amend?

> LH: intention is to combine 1.1 and 1.2 into a single document
> KD: as we review specs for SpecGL conformance we may find additional examples

CSS3 was also mentioned as a potential example, I reckon.

> 4) Status of Implementation of SpecGL and reviews
> LH: comparing SpecGL with WebArch document: is it necessary that all recommendations be widely
> implemented?

I mentioned that the comparison with WebArch was a good one, and that we
can get inspiration from their implementation report.

> KD: we have been told during CR that we must have two complete implementations

should read "We had been told at our previous CR transition call that we
must show 2 complete implementations"

Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux -

Received on Thursday, 6 January 2005 08:23:35 UTC