IRC log of qa on 2006-02-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:06:14 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #qa
08:06:14 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-irc
08:06:45 [olivier]
olivier has joined #qa
08:12:57 [dom]
dom has joined #qa
08:13:15 [Snorre]
Snorre has joined #qa
08:13:33 [dom]
dom has changed the topic to: QA IG F2F in Cannes Mandelieu
08:13:40 [dom]
RRSAgent, pointer?
08:13:40 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-irc#T08-13-40
08:13:49 [dom]
RRSAgent, make log public
08:14:02 [dom]
Chair: Karl Dubost
08:14:04 [dom]
Meeting: QA IG F2F
08:16:52 [dom]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/QA/2006/01/quality_assurance_interest_gro.html
08:17:34 [dom]
Present: Karl Dubost, Snoore Grimsby, Tim Bolland, Olivier Thereaux, Patrick Curran, Jacques Durand, Dominique Hazael-Massieux
08:17:48 [dom]
Regrets: Mark Skall
08:21:58 [pcurran]
pcurran has joined #qa
08:22:24 [dom]
Zakim, this is QAIG
08:22:24 [Zakim]
sorry, dom, I do not see a conference named 'QAIG' in progress or scheduled at this time
08:22:39 [dom]
Zakim, this will be QAIG
08:22:39 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, dom
08:24:34 [pcurran]
Hello - I think I'm connected???
08:24:56 [dom]
ScribeNick: dom
08:25:22 [dom]
Scribe list: this morning: dom; olivier this pm; tim tomorrow am; patrick tomorrow pm
08:26:27 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html Using Zakim IRC Bot
08:28:13 [dom]
Topic: Introductions around the table
08:28:46 [dom]
Olivier: W3C Staff, working on open source tools
08:29:05 [dom]
Snorre: Opera Software, managing Opera's QA department
08:29:14 [dom]
... here to learn and see how Opera can contribute
08:29:37 [dom]
Tim: from US NIST, particular interest in WCAG and similar specifications
08:29:52 [dom]
... to see if addition QA can be applied to human evaluation
08:30:14 [dom]
Patrick: from SUN, run the group developing the conformance TS for Java
08:30:22 [dom]
... see how SUN can incorporate TS from W3C
08:30:41 [dom]
Jacques: from Fujitsu software; involved in conformance testing for ebXML in OASIS
08:30:52 [dom]
... as well as chair of the WS-I interoperability and testing group
08:31:07 [dom]
... interested in exploring how to align OASIS' conformance and tools effort with W3C's
08:31:20 [dom]
... particularly interested in joint work on test assertion
08:32:06 [karl]
dom: part of W3C Staff, I have ran the QA Activity, not involved anymore, but still interested. In our mobile group
08:32:31 [dom]
s/have ran/used to run/
08:32:31 [karl]
... we are interested by test cases.
08:32:53 [dom]
karl: W3C Staff, co-chair of the QA IG with Lynne Rosenthal from NIST
08:33:18 [dom]
s/we are interesetd by test cases/we are looking at the creating a working group to build test suites in the mobile web space/
08:33:32 [dom]
... Conformance manager, so looking closely at QA in W3C
08:33:46 [dom]
... I sent a list of potential topics that could be discussed during this meeting
08:34:13 [karl]
http://www.w3.org/QA/2006/01/quality_assurance_interest_gro.html
08:35:00 [dom]
Topics include Evangelization + W3C IG Notes, Curriculum for Web standards, Validator*S*, CHIPs and CUAP Notes, QA Findings, EARL update , Ongoing development of QA guidelines, Test Case Metadata, Glossary, WAI coordination with QA, Dummy Guide to Test Assertions
08:35:26 [dom]
Karl: propose that we start with Test Case Metadata after planning the rest of the meeting
08:35:52 [dom]
... this pm, Test Assertions and relation with OASIS (when Lynne can join on the phone)
08:36:39 [dom]
... Also, Lynne was asking whether the IG should have a new co-chair, since she may not have enough time
08:37:04 [dom]
... Other topics where Dom should be involved: the Glossary system and the QA Findings
08:37:36 [dom]
... Tomorrow: CHIPS and CUAP (http://www.w3.org/TR/chips/ and http://www.w3.org/TR/cuap/)
08:38:11 [dom]
... also, joint meeting with EARL (an RDF vocabulary to describe test results reports)
08:38:42 [dom]
... they're working on a Guide for EARL on which they would like feedback
08:38:52 [dom]
... Tim Bolland suggested an item on coordination with WAI
08:39:12 [dom]
... also, it was suggested to look at creating a curriculum on web standards
08:39:45 [dom]
... Stéphanie Troeth and Ed Bilodeau [?] (from Montreal) interested in that topic
08:39:55 [dom]
... also, QA Weblog
08:40:14 [dom]
Tim Bolland: what about QA activities outside of W3C?
08:41:02 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/11/other-sdo-qa QA in other SdO
08:41:21 [dom]
... we should look at what has been done in other organizations similar to W3C
08:42:32 [dom]
Patrick: if we have time, we may also want to look at tools and templates
08:42:48 [dom]
Topic: Test Cases Metadata
08:43:41 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/TR/test-metadata/ Test Metadata, W3C Working Group note
08:45:24 [dom]
Karl: the document lists minimal needed information to describe test cases
08:45:37 [dom]
... it was published kind of in hurry
08:46:15 [dom]
... Dom suggested looking at a RDF or XML Schema implementation of these metadata
08:46:58 [karl]
dom: when started on working on this document, maybe it could be used for tools, and maybe a XML Schema, RDF Schema for this document.
08:47:12 [karl]
... I wanted to see if it was interesting for the group
08:47:20 [karl]
... it's a kind of low hanging fruits
08:48:07 [karl]
dom: kind of tools will be test repository, etc.
08:49:06 [dom]
... one of the goals could be that other WG don't have to re-invent it each time
08:50:03 [dom]
Jacques: this looks like a high-level model for test cases
08:50:21 [dom]
... to put that to use, there would have to be more support on the markup side
08:51:52 [dom]
Dom: if we can start advertizing this schema and a few groups build up on it, there can be some momentum behind tools etc
08:52:10 [dom]
Patrick: we have a schema for our test descriptions - much more complex (probably too much so)
08:52:21 [dom]
... but we always have added data above this model
08:52:31 [dom]
... so the schema would need to be extensible
08:52:44 [dom]
Snorre: we would be interested in this in Opera
08:52:54 [dom]
... we have plenty of test suites in Opera that we would like to release
08:53:03 [dom]
... we would be interested in a W3C-kind of way
08:53:14 [dom]
... so that others can take advantage of them
08:54:04 [dom]
Karl: as Patrick mentioned, such a schema would have to be extensible
08:54:27 [dom]
... publishing the metadata was not imposing anything, very flexible
08:55:21 [dom]
... if we publish in one format, it may be more difficult to get it adopted by other format camps
08:55:33 [dom]
... e.g. XML Schema vs RDF Schema vs Relax NG
08:57:07 [dom]
Tim: maybe we could look back at the discussions that happened last year in the TP
08:57:16 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/QA/2005/03/joint-test-suites.html Results of Technical Plenary session on Joint Test Suite
08:57:36 [dom]
Patrick: if we publish one, we can always offer the possibility for someone else to publish it in another format
08:57:47 [dom]
... also, if we provide tools based on this, I think it would be of great interest to people
08:58:17 [dom]
Karl: maybe a good way to do that would be to find a WG that would want to use it as a basis for their testing work
08:59:07 [dom]
Dom: I'm happy to try it with my group if and when the BP group starts developing test cases
08:59:23 [dom]
Tim: would be better if we used 2 groups
09:00:45 [dom]
Karl: would be good to have 2 volunteers to look at the potential interest in this
09:00:52 [dom]
Dom: volunteering
09:01:06 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34786/qa-test/results Survey of testing practices in W3C groups
09:02:37 [dom]
Dom: I think we should have something before we go ask working groups
09:03:59 [dom]
... my goal would simply to have a reference schema that groups could use if they need it
09:04:43 [dom]
ACTION: Dom to propose an implementation of Test Metadata in RDF
09:04:58 [dom]
ACTION: Patrick, Tim and Snorre to review it
09:05:47 [dom]
Dom: if we decide to publish it, do we republish the metadata doc?
09:05:56 [dom]
Olivier: would help both (the doc and the schema)
09:06:14 [dom]
Patrick: also, in the process of defining the schema, we may have to revise some of the metadata
09:06:28 [dom]
Karl: we only have to make clear that this one of the potential binding
09:06:43 [dom]
Patrick: yes, we can also challenge others to provide another binding
09:07:34 [dom]
Olivier: what kind of timeline can we envision?
09:08:48 [dom]
Dom: I'm hoping to have something before mid-March
09:09:15 [dom]
... so we could re-publish the note sometimes in April
09:09:28 [dom]
Topic: W3C Glossary system
09:09:39 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/ W3C Glossary
09:09:53 [dom]
Karl: the glossary collects the vocabulary across W3C specifications
09:11:45 [karl]
dom: (explaining the glossary) it has been started 3 years ago, it collects data from W3C specifications.
09:11:45 [karl]
... it's a system which is based on RDF.
09:11:52 [karl]
Tim: Do you have the glossary of WCAG?
09:12:02 [karl]
dom: not the one of the WCAG 2.0.
09:12:21 [karl]
... there's a new intern starting on this in May.
09:12:47 [karl]
... one of the goals will be to add translation of terms
09:12:54 [karl]
... so to move to a kind of dictionnary
09:13:10 [karl]
... which will be useful for translators.
09:13:24 [karl]
... Improvements of the code is one of the target.
09:13:43 [karl]
... A study of the relationship between terms, or variability of terms.
09:13:58 [karl]
... For example, variability of user agents.
09:14:12 [karl]
... And make the code Open source.
09:14:37 [dom]
karl: in terms of QA, it helps minimize the variations of definitions between specifications
09:15:01 [dom]
Patrick: to what extent are we encouraging people to consult this?
09:15:36 [dom]
Dom: referenced from SpecGL and the Editors home page
09:16:13 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/2003/Editors/ W3C Editors home page
09:16:32 [dom]
Tim: would you be willing to add a non-Rec document (WCAG 2.0) if they wanted so?
09:16:35 [dom]
Dom: sure, if that can helps
09:17:06 [dom]
... usually add glossaries at REC-time since that means it is then stable
09:17:09 [pcurran]
pcurran has joined #QA
09:17:19 [dom]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:17:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html dom
09:17:26 [dom]
[break]
09:17:34 [dom]
dom has changed the topic to: QA IG F2F in Cannes Mandelieu | Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html
09:18:23 [bjoern]
bjoern has joined #qa
09:40:44 [dom]
[reconvening]
09:47:13 [dom]
Topic: CUAP and CHIPs
09:48:38 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/TR/cuap Common User Agent Problems
09:48:46 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/TR/chips/ Common HTTP Implementation Problems
09:49:16 [dom]
Karl: work done a few years ago to highlight some common implementation issues in user agents and HTTP-based softwares
09:49:28 [dom]
... Olivier and I discussed about it and thought about updating them
09:49:37 [dom]
... one of the ideas was to merge them together
09:50:06 [dom]
... another idea was to make them practical identification of problems as described in the the Web Architecture document
09:50:34 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/ Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One
09:50:53 [dom]
Karl: Olivier and I want to work on this, spending each 1/2 day a week on this
09:51:06 [dom]
... trying to get this published ASAP and moving forward with them
09:51:26 [dom]
Patrick: sounds like a good idea; how do you collect the list of problems you address?
09:51:47 [dom]
Karl: the 1st document published was CUAP, which was based on user experiences in the Team
09:52:11 [dom]
... no strict logical processus to collect them
09:52:27 [dom]
... Basing it on WebArch can help structure the document better
09:52:58 [dom]
Patrick: my question was to know who identifies the problems; maybe that's something we could get the community involved in
09:53:05 [dom]
... e.g. with a bugzilla type system
09:53:35 [dom]
karl: the question is how to identify "bugs" given they are not products specific
09:53:50 [dom]
patrick: but aren't you problem actually existing in implementations?
09:54:04 [dom]
karl: the thing is that we have to stay vendor-neutral
09:55:19 [karl]
dom: getting the community involved in reporting the common mistakes implementations would be good. Maybe a wiki, not a bugzilla.
09:56:01 [dom]
karl: indeed, some people are really good at spotting issues in the community
09:57:41 [karl]
olivier: I'm not sure that open feedback would help, because there is a LOT of problems
09:58:04 [dom]
dom: we could use webarch as a framework and ask for specific issues on implementing this or that principle
09:58:25 [dom]
olivier: but isn't this eating feedback for webarch?
09:58:38 [dom]
karl: I think we need to make clear we don't want comments about webarch
09:59:34 [dom]
olivier: separately, how do we include the existing CUAP and CHIPs in this?
09:59:49 [dom]
... certainly, not of all them can be related to WebArch
10:00:03 [dom]
karl: yeah, e.g. usability-related points
10:00:17 [dom]
... should we keep a separate document about them?
10:01:43 [dom]
[karl gives an example about how CUAP recommends allowing to implement user style sheets]
10:02:47 [dom]
dom: I'm a bit concerned about merging the 2 documents
10:02:54 [dom]
... at this time, they have a well-defined audience
10:03:00 [dom]
... merging them would blur this
10:04:11 [dom]
olivier: having one doc would give more freedom on re-designing
10:04:26 [dom]
... but keeping the 2 docs separated would make it easier to keep the existing stuff
10:04:47 [dom]
... the new CUAP could simply mention that it integrates webArch
10:05:22 [dom]
... also, in terms of marketing, it's different to market "CUAP and CHIPs" and to market "practical web arch"
10:05:57 [dom]
Dom: note that the TAG did official request from the community documents that help understanding/implementing web arch
10:06:02 [dom]
... sounds like a fit
10:06:11 [dom]
karl: what kind of timeline?
10:06:40 [Tim]
Tim has joined #QA
10:06:49 [dom]
Olivier: we should try to get something ready to publish by 1st of May
10:07:40 [dom]
Dom: Snorre, had you heard about CUAP wrt your involvment in Opera?
10:07:43 [dom]
Snorre: no, not yet
10:07:53 [dom]
Olivier: would be interested in feedback from you, if you can
10:08:13 [dom]
ACTION: Olivier and Karl to provide an updated version of CUAP and CHIPs - due by end of April
10:08:29 [dom]
Karl: we'll post it to the QA IG
10:08:35 [dom]
[Snorre agrees to review]
10:09:10 [dom]
Topic: QA Findings
10:09:19 [dom]
Karl: another Dom's suggestion!
10:09:51 [karl]
dom: Some of you may know, the TAG has published the Web Architecture document.
10:10:08 [karl]
... but beyond this document, they published TAG Findings.
10:10:56 [karl]
... There are short documents dealing with issues about architecture. The format is quite interesting and gathering the knowledge about one particular topic of Web architecture
10:10:59 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings Findings of the W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG)
10:11:32 [karl]
dom: i was wondering if it would be interesting to publish such documents for QA.
10:11:48 [karl]
... Dom giving an example from his WG.
10:12:38 [karl]
... in MWI, we are writing best practices, some of these practices are not testable. So, they are not normative.
10:13:24 [karl]
... You don't have to be testable to be normative, but your life will be much harder if your provide non testable normative requirements.
10:13:59 [karl]
... So it's a kind of bad idea, but still to have a document pointing all the discussion which have been done of this kind of topic would be good.
10:14:22 [karl]
Patrick: How does it fit with QA Findings?
10:14:46 [karl]
dom: to have something light which helps to design this kind of documents quickly.
10:15:31 [karl]
Patrick: only one document with multiple entries?
10:15:31 [karl]
dom: no, more a collection of individual documents.
10:16:23 [karl]
Patrick: I see how it could be good. Maybe better title than a simple FAQ.
10:16:40 [karl]
Tim: The finding will include the question, and the debate around it.
10:17:02 [dom]
q?
10:17:05 [karl]
dom: The format of the Findings was pleasant.
10:17:17 [dom]
olivier: I like the idea of quickly designing documents
10:17:19 [Tim]
WCAG techniques/tests could also be a "finding"?
10:17:29 [dom]
... but in context of QA, we already have technical reports
10:17:40 [dom]
... tips, the blog articles
10:17:55 [dom]
... adding findings to this may not be a good idea
10:18:13 [dom]
... Tips are targeted to Web designers
10:18:21 [dom]
... Weblog is somewhat in the middle
10:18:31 [dom]
... the findings would be more about conformance issues, I guess
10:18:45 [dom]
... but we should think about having so much variety in our type of documents
10:19:03 [dom]
Patrick: I think we should focus more on publishing something, rather than on format
10:19:18 [dom]
q+
10:19:32 [dom]
... I think we should focus on creating the materials
10:19:41 [dom]
ack dom
10:20:08 [karl]
dom: I'm not caring that much about the format, but more the content.
10:20:26 [karl]
... I will be find to have them in the wiki.
10:20:42 [karl]
s/will be find/will be fine/
10:20:56 [dom]
olivier: one suggestion: what about prototyping on the wiki, and then publishing in the wiki
10:21:02 [dom]
q+ karl
10:21:04 [dom]
q+ dom
10:21:23 [dom]
ack karl
10:21:37 [dom]
... any specific reason to market it as a finding?
10:21:44 [dom]
karl: prototyping in the wiki is a good idea
10:21:55 [dom]
... we did that for the test metadata, some sections of specGl
10:22:02 [olivier]
(publishing it on the "weblog")
10:22:11 [dom]
... the final format could be published in the weblog
10:22:44 [dom]
... I also care more about the content than the format
10:22:46 [dom]
q?
10:23:23 [dom]
ack dom
10:23:38 [dom]
tim: how do we determine what qualifies as a finding?
10:25:15 [dom]
dom: my expecations was that findings would be based on discussions in www-qa
10:25:51 [dom]
... the idea would be to have someone responsible for starting a wiki page when an interesting topic is raised on the ml
10:26:03 [dom]
... or start a draft and asks feedback on it
10:26:12 [dom]
... but I'm not married to the "finding" format
10:26:26 [dom]
... mostly an attempt to get new publications done by this IG
10:26:53 [dom]
olivier: FWIW, the weblog is mostly a publishing framework
10:27:06 [dom]
karl: sounds a bit like a Month in QA
10:28:05 [dom]
dom: maybe a bit deeper than the summaries that were done in the Month in QA
10:28:24 [dom]
karl: but do you have any suggestion as to how to find someone to do the work?
10:29:39 [dom]
... maybe having someone watching out for potential findings would help?
10:30:18 [dom]
... steps could be: discussion in www-qa, pros and cons in the wiki, further discussion in www-qa
10:30:41 [dom]
dom: so maybe our findings are already what we're doing in the wiki
10:31:18 [dom]
patrick: the difference would be that wiki/blogs are more informal, while findings (or a note or whatever) would have more standing
10:31:20 [xover]
xover has joined #qa
10:31:26 [dom]
... would give more authority to the content
10:32:02 [dom]
... so prototyping in the wiki sounds good, but then needs a formal publication
10:32:08 [karl]
http://esw.w3.org/topic/QA - QA wiki
10:32:43 [dom]
... so 1st: prototype in wiki; then finding an editor to gather more data, and then publication either as part of FAQ, or finding
10:34:38 [dom]
Karl: what if we started with an existing wiki topic?
10:35:22 [Tim]
If I find interesting topic in a WG discussion relating to multiple
10:35:24 [dom]
Dom: I would be more interested to start from the topic I raised in www-qa
10:35:34 [Tim]
WGS, should I post to qa list?
10:35:41 [dom]
Tim, sure
10:36:07 [dom]
Patrick: this relates to our recurrent topic on how as a group we get to produce deliverables
10:36:38 [dom]
... I think this needs someone (e.g. the Chairs) to go back and look at what has happened and what can be drawn from this
10:37:01 [dom]
... we should also look at seeting how we could get more contributions
10:37:15 [dom]
... esp. as this is much lesser involvment as it used to be
10:37:27 [dom]
... so more people could participate in e.g. giving 2 hours a month
10:37:43 [dom]
Karl: this will fit well in our agenda for this pm
10:38:02 [dom]
ACTION: Dom to start a wiki page on testability/normativity
10:38:24 [dom]
Dom: will try to get that done before mid-march; will report on www-qa
10:38:56 [dom]
Topic: QA Weblog
10:39:45 [dom]
Karl: the QA home page used to have only small news
10:40:04 [dom]
... after discussion with Olivier, we thought about developing a Web log for the QA home page
10:40:32 [dom]
... this is officially owned by the QA IG, although the policies for writing in it aren't well defined yet
10:40:41 [dom]
... we have already started to publish a few articles
10:40:43 [dom]
... with open comments
10:40:51 [dom]
... (but moderated)
10:41:58 [dom]
... [quotes articles that were written in the past few weeks]
10:43:02 [dom]
... this has been driven by either questions received by email (e.g. for Content Negotiation); or based on an article published elsewhere on which we want to react
10:43:12 [Tim]
What is the process for moderation of submissions to weblog
10:43:13 [dom]
... (e.g. would want to react on Patrick's blog entry on specs and tests)
10:43:29 [dom]
... it should be open to the QA IG
10:43:44 [dom]
... anybody contributing to the QA IG can propose a topic
10:44:01 [dom]
-> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/pcurran Patrick's blog
10:44:18 [dom]
Patrick: so what's the role of this wrt the wiki or informal discussions in the mailing list?
10:44:26 [dom]
Olivier: the way I see it is an extension of the news page
10:44:41 [dom]
... we had short news items on the QA home page
10:45:00 [dom]
Patrick: that seems like an article, not news
10:45:10 [dom]
... so why not in the wiki? what's the difference?
10:45:37 [dom]
karl: 1st, blogs are more and more used as a source of information that people find easier
10:45:46 [dom]
... feeds help following the information
10:46:00 [dom]
... (could also use feeds by category)
10:46:15 [dom]
... it's also a way of communicating that can attract that we could not reach by a mailing list
10:46:25 [dom]
Tim: what about the quality of submissions?
10:46:39 [dom]
... what if there is mis-information or lower quality submissions?
10:46:52 [dom]
... I wouldn't want the existing quality compromised by not as good submissions
10:47:22 [dom]
Patrick: can we revise an existing entry?
10:47:39 [dom]
Karl: yes; that did happen for the entry on ruby
10:47:51 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/QA/2006/02/ruby_annotation_to_change_the.html Ruby Annotation Under The Sunlight
10:48:58 [dom]
... I revised it based on comments from the I18N guys
10:49:19 [dom]
Olivier: one of the differences with the wiki is that don't you get an history of editing
10:49:34 [dom]
... but you get an history of discussion
10:50:16 [dom]
Patrick: so, it sounds like a hierarchy:
10:51:10 [dom]
... casual remark sent in www-qa, prototyping in wiki, and possibly more formal publication in weblog, and even maybe a document/finding based on these
10:51:36 [dom]
Olivier: also, if we see that in the end the weblog should only be news, so be it
10:51:59 [dom]
... but in the meantime, it's a pretty good way to have a better interaction with the community
10:52:08 [dom]
Tim: how is this marketed?
10:52:13 [dom]
olivier: by word of mouth
10:52:21 [dom]
karl: but we haven't marketed it yet
10:52:31 [dom]
Patrick: indeed, even I hadn't heard about it!
10:52:44 [dom]
karl: we didn't want to make big announcements
10:52:55 [dom]
... first testing how the community would react
10:53:18 [dom]
... but anyone should feel free to talk about it or advertize it
10:54:27 [dom]
... e.g. if I leave a comment from w3c QA, I put a link back to the weblog
10:54:47 [dom]
patrick: so if I want to link back to this, I should use the /QA/ URL?
10:55:16 [dom]
karl: http://www.w3.org/QA/IG/ is about the IG itself
10:55:32 [dom]
... the logistics/work page of the QA IG
10:55:56 [pcurran]
pcurran has joined #QA
10:55:59 [dom]
tim: you'll work on it? didn't find it very usable when I was looking for our documents earlier
10:56:09 [dom]
q+ to ask about contribution policies
10:56:12 [Snorre]
q+
10:56:20 [Snorre]
q-
10:56:25 [dom]
patrick: still not sure about the difference between /QA/ and /QA/IG/
10:56:30 [Snorre]
q!
10:56:34 [dom]
q?
10:57:06 [dom]
karl: /QA/IG/ is more about the practical organization of the IG (e.g. minutes, next teleconf, ...)
10:57:17 [dom]
... weblog is more about general QA info
10:57:54 [dom]
patrick: so one more administrative, the other more outreach-y
10:58:03 [dom]
... one for us, the other for the outside world
10:58:37 [dom]
... it used to be the case that all our documents used to be linked from our WG page
11:03:43 [dom_laptop]
dom_laptop has joined #qa
11:04:41 [dom_laptop]
RRSAgent, pointer?
11:04:41 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-irc#T11-04-41
11:07:35 [Tim]
Tim has joined #QA
11:07:48 [Snorre]
Snorre has joined #qa
11:08:01 [dom]
tim: I had trouble to find the documents we had produced
11:08:03 [dom]
patrick: so the QA IG should link to the documents we produced as a WG
11:08:05 [dom]
Dom: what are the publication policies?
11:08:07 [dom]
karl: not defined yet, happy to get ideas on this
11:08:09 [dom]
olivier: if we use the wiki, this can help a review process
11:08:11 [dom]
dom: but doesn't it make too heavy to get something published?
11:08:13 [dom]
... in my WG, we have a separate category for personal comments
11:08:17 [dom]
... with people clearly identified (e.g. with headshots)
11:08:19 [dom]
Patrick: I don't think we should publish personal opinions
11:08:21 [pcurran]
pcurran has joined #QA
11:08:25 [dom]
... going through the wiki sounds like a good way forward
11:08:45 [dom]
Dom: but this doesn't play well with being able to reply to a post in another weblog
11:09:04 [dom]
... if it takes e.g. 2 weeks to get consensus on a post, it doesn't seem worth it
11:09:13 [dom]
Tim: I'm still not sure what's the goal of the weblog is
11:09:22 [dom]
karl: it is another way to interact with the community
11:09:40 [dom]
... e.g. for people that don't subscribe to mailing lists because they're too noisy
11:10:49 [dom]
... we actually get comments on our articles
11:11:00 [dom]
... so people are interested enough to react on them
11:11:25 [dom]
... My main worry with the blog is that it may actually reduce the participation to the mailing list
11:11:42 [dom]
... we can try to bridge the 2 worlds by posting from one to the other from time to time
11:18:02 [dom]
Dom: I guess I'm still not sure about what you're going to tell the IG about contributing
11:18:35 [dom]
karl: if there is something that has been discussed richly enough in the mailing list, the weblog is a good venue to publish it
11:19:15 [dom]
patrick: still not clear if we're encouraging people to comment or to contribute entries, or what
11:20:15 [dom]
... nor if there is a review process
11:20:15 [dom]
karl: my idea is that if we see a discussion worthwile to publish, we'll ask for contribution
11:20:26 [dom]
dom: so what about the EBNF of the XML Spec on the www-qa?
11:20:30 [dom]
karl: sounds like a good example
11:20:44 [dom]
ACTION: karl to see if bjoern is interested in preparing a blog entry on the EBNF discussion
11:21:33 [dom]
[breaking for lunch until 1:30]
11:23:32 [dom]
dom has changed the topic to: break until 1:30 | QA IG F2F in Cannes Mandelieu | Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html
12:32:51 [lynne]
lynne has joined #qa
12:38:52 [karl]
karl has joined #qa
12:41:41 [pcurran]
pcurran has joined #QA
12:42:16 [karl]
Hi lynne
12:42:37 [karl]
zakim, this will be QAIG
12:42:37 [Zakim]
ok, karl; I see QA_QAIG(TP)8:00AM scheduled to start in 18 minutes
12:42:49 [dom]
dom has joined #qa
12:43:54 [lynne]
Hi Karl. I'm back - I took a break
12:44:25 [Tim]
Tim has joined #QA
12:45:47 [dom]
ScribeNick: Tim
12:47:33 [Tim]
Topic: EBNF
12:47:33 [dom]
Topic: EBNF discussion
12:48:18 [Tim]
Dom: discussion of EBNF discrepancies among specs
12:48:40 [Snorre]
Snorre has joined #qa
12:49:32 [Tim]
.. or inconsistencies (examples of problems)?
12:50:23 [Zakim]
QA_QAIG(TP)8:00AM has now started
12:50:30 [Zakim]
+MSkall/LynneR
12:50:47 [dom]
Zakim, dial tp_138
12:50:47 [Zakim]
ok, dom; the call is being made
12:50:48 [Zakim]
+Tp_138
12:51:19 [karl]
karl has changed the topic to: QA IG F2F in Cannes Mandelieu | Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html
12:51:45 [Tim]
..taking existing ENBF adding XML namespaces plus errata
12:52:59 [Tim]
..to avoid further discrepancies - consistency
12:53:31 [Tim]
Patrick: is it our job to fix the problem - just note it?
12:54:39 [Tim]
.. bug is with XML Core spec (before namespaces)
12:55:25 [Tim]
.. QA implications of add-ons to specs (relationships between specs)
12:55:54 [dom]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2006Jan/0000.html Bjoern's original message on the problems of the XML EBNF spec
12:56:11 [lynne]
who is there: Dom, Karl, Patrick, Tim - anyone else
12:57:09 [dom]
lynne, see the roll call at the top of http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html
12:57:09 [Tim]
Karl: post outcome of discussion on QA IG mailing list
12:57:12 [dom]
Present+ Lynne
12:57:54 [Tim]
Karl: not our role to publish update of XML spec - XML Core's role?
12:58:11 [dom]
Present+ Doug_Schepers
12:58:17 [dom]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:58:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html dom
12:58:21 [Tim]
Karl: ask Bjoern to contact XML Core re: EBNF item
12:59:21 [Tim]
Topic: Test Assertion Guide
13:00:20 [Tim]
Jacques worked inside OASIS - two efforts - one in scope of EBXML,
13:01:00 [Tim]
..markup of test assertions, other is that specs should be more
13:01:14 [karl]
(olivier is leaving the room for another meeting)
13:01:35 [Tim]
testable, more guidance for writing test assertions
13:03:07 [Tim]
.., guidelines needed for what should be in test assertions,
13:03:56 [Tim]
..simple but useful - educational/PR exercise
13:04:16 [Tim]
Karl: what is status of test assertion guide now?
13:04:37 [karl]
(doug has left the room)
13:05:27 [Tim]
Jacques: rough draft now, could be reviewed by both OASIS and W3C
13:05:59 [Tim]
.. on technical basis (needs to be public?)
13:06:35 [Tim]
Karl: how difficult is it to make document more public, so more
13:06:58 [Tim]
..reviewers could access it?
13:07:55 [Tim]
Lynne: good solution is to make OASIS document public
13:09:12 [Tim]
.. see whether who would be interested in working on document,
13:09:22 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2005/01/test-faq QA Test FAQ
13:09:38 [Tim]
.. this document could end up as FAQ for test assertions
13:11:08 [Tim]
Lynne: goal- come up with thoughts occurring to people when deriving
13:11:28 [Tim]
test assertions, as well as automatic generation of test assertions
13:11:51 [Tim]
Patrick: would like to be involved in this work
13:12:23 [Tim]
Lynne: important to list all the choices in this document
13:13:08 [Tim]
Jacques: benefit - get the spec more testable, so that others can
13:13:47 [Tim]
..take over and write test assertions, and also, test assertion
13:14:06 [karl]
-> Oct 2001 - Dimitris Dimitriadis - Test Assertions Guidelines is mentionned - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2001Oct/0064.html
13:14:15 [Tim]
..writers can find gaps or holes in specs, and thus write better specs
13:15:12 [Tim]
Karl: How long to make the document more public?
13:16:15 [Tim]
Jacques: need to talk to OASIS legal people - IP issues?
13:17:12 [Tim]
.. more difficult question may be status of final outcome
13:19:26 [Tim]
ACTION Jacques and Lynne: to find out about making the document public
13:20:09 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison#OASIS W3C Liaisons (incl OASIS)
13:20:30 [Tim]
Lynne: description or summary needed of goal of making document public
13:21:36 [Tim]
ACTION Lynne: develop document summary (review with Jacques)
13:23:57 [Tim]
Topic: Organization of QAIG
13:25:07 [Tim]
Karl: group not easily identified, must be on qaig mailing list,
13:25:27 [Tim]
..not currently regular teleconferences
13:27:14 [Tim]
..concern about finding better way of organizing the QAIG
13:27:45 [Tim]
..to support QAIG objectives
13:28:09 [Tim]
Lynne: concern about lack of specific deliverables, and no regular
13:28:52 [Tim]
..teleconferences to provide continuity, so how to get QAIG engaged
13:29:15 [Tim]
..on topics, and how to move forward on topics, given limited
13:29:35 [Tim]
..time availability for QAIG
13:30:11 [Tim]
.. someone with more time for QAIG might be better right now as cochair?
13:30:52 [Tim]
Karl: (to Lynne) could you still participate (as resource)?
13:31:30 [Tim]
Lynne: yes, but still limited amount of time to contribute to QAIG
13:32:03 [Tim]
.. cochair should devote more time to QAIG?
13:32:24 [Tim]
Patrick: how much time is required for chchair of QAIG?
13:33:59 [Tim]
s/chchair/cochair/
13:34:49 [Tim]
Lynne: hard to say, maybe two hours a week?
13:35:12 [Tim]
Patrick: can put in two hours a week
13:36:20 [Tim]
at least one W3C staff person is needed for the QAIG
13:37:04 [Tim]
Dom: people can be very active in QAIG without being cochairs
13:37:42 [Tim]
Lynne: supports Patrick as cochair, will step down as cochair?
13:38:27 [Tim]
Patrick: will accept cochair, so Lynne will resign cochair
13:38:51 [pcurran]
pcurran has joined #QA
13:38:53 [Tim]
ACTION Karl: to ask W3C management about change of chairs
13:39:52 [Tim]
Karl: Lynne and Patrick: how should QAIG work be organized?
13:40:41 [Tim]
Patrick: regular teleconferences (at least among cochairs) needed
13:46:30 [Tim]
maybe every two weeks
13:47:22 [Tim]
ACTION Patrick and Karl; to arrange specific time for QAIG teleconfs
13:47:42 [Tim]
From group - thanks for a great job, Lynne!
13:48:45 [Tim]
Topic: Templates of QA Handbook and SpecGL
13:49:25 [Tim]
Karl: what is status of work?
13:49:54 [Tim]
Lynne: no more work done on conformance template
13:50:39 [Tim]
Karl: conformance template - needs work to finish
13:51:15 [Tim]
Patrick: do it, if it's close to finished. Templates are useful to
13:51:45 [Tim]
..other WGs because it saves them work
13:52:15 [Tim]
Karl: SpecGL is tool to write specs
13:52:18 [lofton]
lofton has joined #qa
13:52:37 [Tim]
ACTION Karl: to finish conformance template
13:52:58 [lofton]
zakim call lofton
13:53:18 [Tim]
Karl: started to work on charter template with Ian Jacobs, along with
13:53:27 [Tim]
..checker, needed in W3C to write charter
13:54:05 [Zakim]
+Lofton_Henderson
13:55:08 [Tim]
Karl: more work needed on this template (finish stylesheet issue?)
13:55:39 [Tim]
ACTION Karl: to finish charter template by March 16
13:56:07 [Tim]
Karl: third template is process template - ask Lofton to do?
13:57:11 [Tim]
Lofton: yes, in next six weeks
13:59:03 [Tim]
ACTION Lofton: to finish process template in next six weeks
13:59:22 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/08/QAH-qapd-root.html Process document template based on the QA Handbook
14:00:42 [Tim]
Karl: sent email about proposition of work - indexing QA Handbook
14:01:08 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/mid/A2B7A5CC-8E66-4228-B18B-F0887221557A@w3.org Karl's proposal to "tag" the QA Handbook
14:01:11 [Tim]
..another way to access document different indexes depending on
14:02:00 [Tim]
..different categories - easy for WGs
14:03:06 [Tim]
ACTION Tim: to index QA Handbook to answer specific questions
14:04:55 [Tim]
Topic: Tools
14:05:06 [Tim]
Karl: What kinds of tools would be useful?
14:05:57 [Tim]
Patrick: More tools produced is good for participation, maybe
14:06:46 [Tim]
..spec markup process, measuring coverage, maybe donate some
14:07:12 [Tim]
..documents describing coverage issues, no other specific suggestions
14:07:57 [Tim]
Patrick: tools for tests/test harnesses needed
14:08:45 [Tim]
Lynne: Would a tools library/resource library be useful?
14:09:12 [Tim]
Patrick: yes, definitely, for information sharing/reuse, maybe use
14:09:35 [Tim]
..wiki to invite input from other WGs for example
14:10:16 [karl]
-> http://esw.w3.org/topic/QATools
14:10:34 [Tim]
ACTION Patrick: create section on wiki re: tools
14:11:51 [karl]
-> http://esw.w3.org/topic/QaTools
14:12:09 [sniffles]
sniffles has joined #qa
14:12:26 [karl]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2006Feb/0001.html
14:12:28 [Tim]
Karl: Robin Berjon has asked for someone from QAIG to go to EXI WG and
14:12:42 [karl]
Hi steph
14:12:50 [sniffles]
salut karl :)
14:12:53 [Tim]
explain QA work since EXI is starting testing activities
14:16:16 [Tim]
Patrick: respond that if EXI reps are available Tuesday could be
14:16:16 [sniffles]
(brb0
14:16:51 [Tim]
..meeting then, but no one from QAIG is available Thurs-Fri
14:17:31 [Zakim]
-MSkall/LynneR
14:17:37 [Zakim]
-Lofton_Henderson
14:18:04 [lofton]
zakim, call lofton
14:18:04 [Zakim]
ok, lofton; the call is being made
14:18:06 [Zakim]
+Lofton
14:19:22 [Zakim]
-Lofton
14:20:40 [sniffles]
sniffles has joined #qa
14:22:00 [sniffles]
re
14:25:51 [sniffles]
karl? i'm trying to get holly to come here as well
14:28:15 [sniffles]
ping
14:30:08 [holly]
holly has joined #qa
14:30:30 [sniffles]
hey holly
14:30:37 [sniffles]
:)
14:30:39 [holly]
hey steph. :)
14:31:49 [sniffles]
i think everyone's left ;)
14:38:53 [dom]
we're back
14:39:12 [sniffles]
hey dom!
14:39:15 [karl]
cool holly and sniffles
14:39:18 [karl]
:)
14:39:32 [holly]
hi karl :)
14:39:39 [karl]
olivier is trying to join again
14:39:51 [karl]
we are waiting for the scribe,
14:40:08 [holly]
where's the video :)
14:40:16 [karl]
and another participants.
14:40:27 [sniffles]
is Ed joining us on IRC ?
14:40:29 [karl]
Heheh I have forgotten my webcam I could have broadcast indeed
14:40:31 [sniffles]
or is he calling in ?
14:40:58 [sniffles]
or if someone would like to open a skype conversation with me ... :)
14:41:07 [karl]
I didn't have time to send him an email. We were without connections until yesterday.
14:41:09 [karl]
:)
14:41:09 [sniffles]
but i can't use skype-in
14:41:45 [sniffles]
okay, i can try and catch up with him, but for two people who live in the same city moving in the same circles, i see him once every 1.5 years :P
14:41:58 [karl]
olivier has skype but he doesn't have internet for now
14:42:08 [karl]
the network is not very active
14:42:24 [sniffles]
OKAY
14:42:27 [sniffles]
oops
14:42:28 [sniffles]
sorry caps
14:43:02 [sniffles]
i guess irc will have to do ...
14:43:02 [karl]
we might try by IRC. A little bit more difficult though but still doable
14:43:15 [sniffles]
i am also in an open office :) you won't be able to hear me
14:43:26 [karl]
I introduce the topic to the group here
14:43:26 [lynne]
lynne has joined #qa
14:43:31 [sniffles]
okay
14:43:32 [sniffles]
cool, thanks
14:43:41 [Zakim]
-Tp_138
14:43:42 [Zakim]
QA_QAIG(TP)8:00AM has ended
14:43:43 [Zakim]
Attendees were MSkall/LynneR, Tp_138, Lofton_Henderson, Lofton
14:44:13 [Tim]
Topic: QA Curriculum for Web Standards
14:44:19 [Zakim]
QA_QAIG(TP)8:00AM has now started
14:44:26 [Zakim]
+MSkall/LynneR
14:44:49 [Zakim]
+Tp_138
14:44:54 [lynne]
thanks.
14:45:41 [Zakim]
+Lofton
14:46:56 [Tim]
Karl: possibility of resources from WASP re: teaching web standards
14:47:40 [karl]
holly and sniffles if you want to jump, feel free. :)
14:47:45 [Tim]
WASP stands for Web Standards Project (representatives on IRC)
14:47:52 [sniffles]
hello everyone
14:48:07 [sniffles]
holly and I are both part of WaSP's education task force
14:48:42 [Tim]
Karl: talked with Ed Bilodeau at McGill Univ - might contribute
14:48:53 [sniffles]
most of what we've done currently involve talking to universities and colleges, bringing out examples of what's been done
14:49:03 [Tim]
..web standards materials to QAIG
14:49:09 [sniffles]
currently the available public output has been in the forms of interviews
14:49:29 [sniffles]
however, we've been looking at developing a kind of a curriculum framework
14:49:36 [sniffles]
to help lecturers incorporate that into their teaching
14:50:14 [sniffles]
it's very slow so far, and i think we'd like to see also if you have made any avenues
14:50:28 [sniffles]
in which case, we should probably look at knowledge/experience sharing
14:50:31 [sniffles]
:)
14:50:56 [sniffles]
for reference: http://www.webstandards.org/act/campaign/edutf/
14:51:09 [karl]
so we do not have done anything in this direction. BUT I had a discussion in the past with Ed Bilodeau who has done also teaching about Web standards
14:51:37 [karl]
and he seemed to be interested in contributing or even giving some of his materials for a W3C IG note
14:52:00 [karl]
I thought that was an interesting because both of you are in Montreal
14:52:13 [karl]
and that would be easier to coordinate a project association QA IG and WASP
14:52:22 [sniffles]
yes, indeed it would be
14:52:29 [karl]
Would you think it would be a good idea?
14:53:16 [sniffles]
yes, our notes on where we would like to head include estimating things like budgets, resources
14:53:20 [sniffles]
to make it a useful framework for educators
14:53:24 [Tim]
what is the audience for the curriculum?
14:53:30 [sniffles]
lecturers, college teachers
14:53:31 [Zakim]
-MSkall/LynneR
14:53:49 [sniffles]
we know that sometimes lecturers are sold on standards-compliance (in some cases they are not)
14:53:59 [sniffles]
but those who are find it difficult to push things through their department
14:54:04 [sniffles]
and tend to face resistance
14:54:11 [sniffles]
most web courses are in "design" faculties
14:54:19 [sniffles]
and anything with TLAs come across as bit too technical ;)
14:54:40 [sniffles]
so it's not just as simple as creating a framework, but perhaps also developing strategies for change
14:54:56 [Tim]
Olivier: what kind of "package" can be sent to lecturers for distribution
14:55:06 [Tim]
..to their faculty?
14:55:09 [sniffles]
that hasn't yet been established
14:55:33 [sniffles]
the goal for eduTF is to be international with this model
14:55:45 [sniffles]
and for that we have to understand (and we're still gathering information) of how universities function around the world
14:55:47 [Tim]
Olivier: "package" could be only resources to full first course to
14:55:55 [Tim]
..adapt for their purposes
14:56:05 [sniffles]
that's the idea, yes
14:56:25 [Tim]
Patrick: QAIG not experienced in eduation, but could provide materials
14:56:49 [sniffles]
that would be most helpful :)
14:56:52 [Tim]
..for educators to collect
14:57:03 [sniffles]
i think we need to strike a balance between
14:57:06 [sniffles]
1) what needs to be taught
14:57:15 [sniffles]
2) what can conceivably be taught
14:57:22 [holly]
I was thinking aout a Why Teach Standards piece. direct it at students, faculty, institutions
14:57:43 [sniffles]
that would be very good coming from the QA
14:57:46 [sniffles]
team
14:57:48 [Tim]
Olivier: goals of task force is to understand how universities work
14:57:56 [Tim]
..around the world
14:58:28 [karl]
(big laugh here)
14:58:35 [sniffles]
what did i say? :D
14:58:36 [Tim]
Dom: need to be pragmatic?
14:58:57 [dom]
sniffles, we were doing exegesis of your words above (re need vs can)
14:59:03 [sniffles]
hehehe
14:59:08 [holly]
I tend to believe universities around the world, work in quite the same way. Difficult to get change through.
14:59:33 [sniffles]
we've seen similarities in that you either get web courses taught in design faculties or in computing
14:59:56 [sniffles]
re need vs can: there's the simple factor of how many contact hours you expect a student to take per week :)
15:00:02 [Snorre]
q+
15:00:03 [holly]
Difficult to convince. Issues regarding budget. Issues regarding faculty having time to learn standards approach.
15:00:21 [sniffles]
yes, as most educators themselves are not up to date
15:00:51 [holly]
Difficult to show importance of basics standards skills in the multimedia approach and also in the computer science development/programming approach.
15:01:06 [holly]
not separate issue, needs to address design and development
15:01:14 [sniffles]
and the preference for Flash sites ;)
15:01:14 [karl]
olivier: qaig has little experience in education; but experience in being a round table
15:01:27 [bjoern]
Nearby: "note from Prof Knuth", http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2005Sep/0052
15:01:45 [Tim]
Snorre: Resources at Opera to make available for this effort?
15:03:21 [Tim]
Karl: have some proposals for material, small group of people get
15:03:27 [holly]
As a tandem, we are also seeing some Web Standards User groups forming at key Universities and Colleges to provide and advocate a method for change - WaSP Edu is providing interviews with these as we find out about them.
15:03:50 [Tim]
..online to define agenda for working, schedule, etc.
15:04:22 [Tim]
Olivier: what kind of structure should this activity take?
15:04:52 [Tim]
Olivier: this is a coordination issue - who should lead?
15:05:24 [Tim]
Karl: creating a task force (involving another task force)?
15:05:29 [sniffles]
*chuckle*
15:05:38 [sniffles]
russian doll model? :)
15:05:52 [karl]
(laughs)
15:05:58 [Tim]
Karl: Question for WASP - would WASP want to particpate on this
15:06:04 [sniffles]
the core eduTF has four to six people
15:06:12 [Tim]
..activity in the QAIG in an open way?
15:06:15 [sniffles]
i say 4 to 6 because we're not always available
15:06:55 [sniffles]
i think it would be good for us to join efforts
15:06:55 [holly]
I bet at least 3 of us could be fairly active.
15:06:56 [karl]
karl: Would this 4 to 6 persons can have regular IRC meetings at least, every 2 weeks.
15:07:03 [sniffles]
i can, yes
15:07:11 [holly]
i could also.
15:07:28 [karl]
olivier: how many people at Opera on this?
15:07:30 [sniffles]
the question from me is: where would QAIG like this to head ?
15:07:49 [sniffles]
do we have similar goals, or are you planning to adopt the vision eduTF already established?
15:07:53 [karl]
Snorre: 1 full time + future resources part time and then full time
15:08:24 [sniffles]
i'm sorry, i missed something - the opera resource for taking part in this ?
15:08:35 [lofton]
lofton has joined #qa
15:08:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html dom
15:08:44 [karl]
karl: as for heading, the QA IG is quite open
15:09:17 [karl]
It's more a question of coordination, structure, and avenue for publishing
15:09:20 [dom]
s/1 full time/Opera has 1 full time/
15:09:35 [dom]
s/then full time/then full time working on the "open the web" initiative/
15:09:39 [karl]
... It could be published as a QA IG note (if it makes sense)
15:09:57 [sniffles]
i think having the QA IG on side would be great for pushing it forward
15:10:43 [sniffles]
but much more work to be done before that ;)
15:10:59 [holly]
Agree. When the school staff and developers see that QA is on board, I think the message becomes much stronger.
15:11:20 [dom]
s/to review it/to review Dom'simplementation of Test Metadata in RDF/
15:11:35 [karl]
olivier: I propose to push the requirements interview phase and then decide where to head from there.
15:11:47 [Tim]
Olivier: don't know what educators want, so get requirements first
15:12:28 [sniffles]
we have access to a large circle of educators
15:12:39 [karl]
Snorre: resources has internally for now, for the Open The Web initiative, we don't know yet how much we might be able to contribute to QA IG
15:12:45 [sniffles]
so if we can develop a small set of questions that will be definitive
15:12:53 [sniffles]
we can scatter this outwards in our avenues
15:13:19 [karl]
agreed. :)
15:13:35 [karl]
karl: next steps? what would it be?
15:13:42 [karl]
having a first IRC meeting?
15:13:52 [karl]
Scheduled ... when
15:14:03 [dom]
[I have to go to another meeting; plans to be here tomorrow am if meeting is confirmed]
15:14:31 [sniffles]
i think holly and i should raise the discussion with other eduTF members
15:15:02 [karl]
Let's say that if ok, we could have an IRC meeting in 2 weeks from now
15:15:08 [sniffles]
that sounds good
15:15:26 [holly]
Two weeks from now, is that SXSW timing?
15:15:28 [karl]
and then you could report about WASP decisions, and we can try to program the next move
15:15:51 [sniffles]
hrm yes, if it's SXSW it'll be difficult to coordinate
15:16:02 [karl]
SXSW: March 10-19
15:17:00 [sniffles]
let's coordinate something post SXSW
15:17:04 [karl]
do you prefer before or after?
15:17:07 [karl]
post
15:17:09 [karl]
ok :)
15:17:12 [sniffles]
with any luck there will be additioinal material coming from the WaSP meet there
15:17:35 [karl]
21 March?
15:18:00 [sniffles]
sure
15:18:06 [sniffles]
timing might be difficult :)
15:18:16 [holly]
sounds fine to me.
15:18:23 [karl]
Have you seen the date of SXSW Interactive is 10-14
15:18:27 [karl]
it gives one week
15:18:58 [holly]
you could move the date up a bit for the meeting.
15:19:51 [karl]
March 21??? is it ok?
15:19:56 [karl]
final answer?
15:19:57 [karl]
:D
15:20:04 [sniffles]
it's fine with me :)
15:20:19 [karl]
ok good set and minuted.
15:20:46 [karl]
I think we will adjourn the meeting for today.
15:20:48 [sniffles]
excellent
15:20:53 [sniffles]
thanks everyone
15:20:57 [karl]
:) thanks sniffles and holly
15:21:07 [holly]
thanks Karl :)
15:21:38 [sniffles]
thanks karl :)
15:22:50 [karl]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:22:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html karl
15:23:10 [karl]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:23:25 [karl]
MEETING Adjourned
15:23:27 [karl]
:)
15:23:33 [karl]
zakim, bye
15:23:33 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were MSkall/LynneR, Tp_138, Lofton
15:23:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #qa
15:24:34 [karl]
RRSAgent, bye
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
I see 12 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-actions.rdf :
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Dom to propose an implementation of Test Metadata in RDF [1]
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-irc#T09-04-43
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Patrick, Tim and Snorre to review it [2]
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-irc#T09-04-58
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Olivier and Karl to provide an updated version of CUAP and CHIPs - due by end of April [3]
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-irc#T10-08-13
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Dom to start a wiki page on testability/normativity [4]
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-irc#T10-38-02
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: karl to see if bjoern is interested in preparing a blog entry on the EBNF discussion [5]
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-irc#T11-20-44
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Lynne to develop document summary (review with Jacques) [6]
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-irc#T13-21-36
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Karl to to ask W3C management about change of chairs [7]
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-irc#T13-38-53
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Karl to to finish conformance template [8]
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-irc#T13-52-37
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Karl to to finish charter template by March 16 [9]
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-irc#T13-55-39
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Lofton to to finish process template in next six weeks [10]
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-irc#T13-59-03
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Tim to to index QA Handbook to answer specific questions [11]
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-irc#T14-03-06
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Patrick to create section on wiki re: tools [12]
15:24:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-irc#T14-10-34