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

FINAL: Agenda: March 14 2005 QA WG teleconf

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:50:21 -0500
Message-Id: <946e3187d781ed007be3dee12bfcd294@w3.org>
To: 'www-qa-wg@w3.org' <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

QAWG telecon participants --

   Here is the agenda for today teleconf (March 14 2005).

The principal topic will be SpecGL LC issues resolution; issues list:

   Scribe: Tim Boland, Dimitris, Dominique
   Chair: Karl
   Template: http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/telcon-template.txt

1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership

2.) routine business

* June Venue for F2F
	* Dates: June or July, which week
	* Place: Dublin, Ireland?

* Next Teleconfs: Volunteer chairs?
		* March 28 (Karl away, Dom away)
		* April 4
		* April 11

3.) SpecGL issues
	We will go through this list and we will continue. Please read them.

Status of Issues:
	Open: 23
	Closed: 41

#995 - Old potential Issues

     Two issues still open.
	* 18 (Framework) Should the Framework documents be published as Note  
or as Working Draft?
	* 23 (TestMaterials) Tests for MAY/SHOULD assertions.
PROPOSAL: I propose to close these two issues. The QA Handbook has been  
published as a guide, and Test Materials is at work for possibly a W3C  

	* CR-29 Detectable errors for instance data CoP, and error reporting  
requirements for associated processor (software) CoP.
	Proposal: Closed: Error Mechanism is addressed in SpecGL and
               there's a wiki topic about it.
		      http://esw.w3.org/topic/ErrorHandling 	* CR-33 to CR-41 + CR-59  
  are issues made by Jeremy Carroll which were mostly Process oriented.  
Jeremy Carroll in his last review of the second Last Call of  
Specification Guidelines has said to withdraw his previous comments  
thinking there were addressed with the new document.
	Proposal: Closed.
	* CR-42 Test Assertions -- definitions (Lofton Henderson)
	A definition has been provided in Spec GL
	Proposal: Closed.
	* CR-43 How do we create Test Assertions for SpecGL (Mark Skall)
	The Req/GP by their imperative form are test assertions?
	Proposal: Closed
	* CR-44 Test Assertions -- should SpecGL require them? (Lynne  
	Solved by the prose of the current SpecGL
	Proposal: Closed
	* CR-45 to CR-57 Issues about CoP. (Lofton Henderson)
	Not anymore relevant by the nature of the new document.
	Proposal: Closed
	* CR-58 Clarify what comprises "list" of Test Assertions. (Lofton  
	The new text doesn't provide requirement on the form of the Test  
Assertion, then the question is not anymore applicable, though one's  
could ask what form must have the Test Assertions. The technique 5 GP D  
gives possibility. Note 5 GP D is moved to section 3.
	Proposal: Closed.

#983 - Example for ICS claim
Karl will clarify.  (AI to Karl:  look  for an example of GP 1.2C  

#1041 - Conformance is not a yes/no proposition (wrt filling an ICS)
Lynne has an action item to provide clarification wrt real meaning of  
AI-20050303-1 LR to provide a 1 sentence disclaimer in the"What does it  
section that the ICS should positively emphasize that it's not about  

#1044 - Case of RFC2119 terms
	See Mail [SpecGL] 1044 - Case of RFC2119 terms

#1049 - Using Formal Languages
	GP 5 E to section 3.
	See Mail [SpecGL] 1049 - Formal vs prose language normativity

#1058 New Numbering Structure
	I have created a possible scheme for it

#1144 Workflow New section: Beyond Conformance
	I have for now called it "Appendix A: Publication workflow"


   Zakim bridge: +1-617-761-6200
   11:00am-12noon EST.
   code: 7294 ("QAWG")
   IRC, see: http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2001/12/07-QA-logistics#telcon

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Monday, 14 March 2005 14:50:28 UTC

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