W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > March 2005

Re: Draft minutes Boston F2F, 4 Friday 2005 AM

From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:12:10 +0100
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1110795131.11665.465.camel@stratustier>
Le dimanche 13 mars 2005 à 13:11 -0700, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
> >Section 5 Story ­ identify the group, QAWG.
> >RESOLUTION:  agree with the TAG.  We won’t be so modest and will come out 
> >of the closet.
> Summary:  if we're going to take attribution (which is fine with me), we 
> should revise it to be more accurate.

Unless you make a specific proposal, I'd rather keep it as is; while
it's not 100% accurate, I think that our decision to proceed as we
decided to should have been reconsidered if we had done the type of
quality review we're suggesting.

> [...]
> >In Conformance Claim section, add bullet to ‘include a completed ICS; Add 
> >to the example reference to the ICS ­ e.g., An ICS proforma is at <give 
> >URI>.  Clarify the ‘you can claim conformance’ that this is one example of 
> >what the claim can look like it.  Need to move SpecGL’s ICS from 
> >informative to normative.
> Huh?  How can it be normative if it contains no conformance requirements, 
> no test assertions, etc?  Another way to look at it, who would conform to 
> the SpecGL ICS itself, and how?  The ICS itself is not prescriptive of any 
> behavior or characteristic of a spec conforming to SpecGL.

It was decided to make it normative since we decided to require specGL
implementors to fill it up to claim conformance to SpecGL.

> As defined Thursday (Boston), isn't the ICS an (unsubstantiated) claim of 
> spec authors' intent to conform to SpecGL?

... until it is required to claim conformance.

Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/

Received on Monday, 14 March 2005 10:12:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:38 UTC