QA Working Group Teleconference

7 Feb 2005



Karl, Tim_Boland, Dom, Dimitris, LynneR, Richard, DaveMarston, MSkall
Patrick, Lofton
Karl Dubost



routine business: Tech Plen preparation, WCAG 2 questions, xml:id conformant to SpecGL

karl: during Tech Plenary day, there will be a panel on extensibility and versioning, with TAG and other groups
... they would like to get someone from QA WG on this panel

Tim: what's the context exactly?

karl: discussion started with coordination between QA WG and TAG
... extensions were not addressed the same way in TAG and QA WG
... tension between extensibility and versioning, not handled the same way
... also related question to format without a versioning system
... panel will be around all these questions, whether extensibility is good or not, versioning, etc

Tim: I did mention the versioning question to the CSS WG
... the # of participants thinking that versioning was not needed prevailed

karl: we need someone to represent the QA WG point of views

Tim: I could be interested in it

DaveMarston: me too, but Tim is probably a better candidate since he's formally participating in the QA WG

Tim: Dave and I could work together offline

Karl: I have some input too
... Also, it's always possible to participate from the audience

ACTION: karl to respond to the panel organizers with the name of our candidates

ACTION: karl to send background information about panel on extensibility to Dave and Tim

Dom: I suggest that Tim and Dave should copy the WG mailing list on their resulting discussions

karl: another point related to the Tech Plenary
... the TAG wanted to know whether we wanted to have a joint meeting on this very topic
... as a follow-up to the comments we made on extensibility back during WebArch Last Call

Dom: any specific points that could be addressed during such a meeting?

karl: there is a finding the TAG is writing on this topic

Dave: a related topic I would like to see addressed is when there are normative interdependencies between technologies with various levels/modules, etc.

tim: we have these questions in ATAG/WCAG too

Karl: does that concern also the TAG?

Dave: the QA group may be ahead of other groups wrt systematic thoughts about how to do so

[going around the persons present on the call: almost nobody would be available at the proposed time]

karl: will get back to the TAG to let them know we can't do it during the tech plen
... we can always organize a joint teleconf afterwards
... Next item is about the questions from the WAI CG
... they had comments really about SpecGL that we'll have to solve in their own time
... but there are also a few questions about how SpecGL applies to their documents, esp. WCAG 2.0
... either we discuss that today, or we get someone from the QA WG to help answer their questions
... for instance, they have an issue about extensibility: they're not sure how it would apply to WCAG 2.0
... e.g. policy makers adding rules to WCAG 2.0
... they don't know how to deal with it

Tim: the WCAG 2.0 principles can serve as a basis for local versions laws

karl: this is the kind of questions they have; also have some about "deprecated features"
... I think someone from the QA WG should try and help them solve their specific issues and see whether SpecGL answers their questions
... if that raises specific issues, we can get them back into our specGL issues

Tim: I'm participating in the techniques teleconf
... I guess I could volunteer to help them
... I'll initiate the discussion in the WCAG WG and reports back to QA

ACTION: Tim to initate the discussion in WCAG WG about the 8 questions raised - Karl will forward specific bugs numbers

tim: is this reasonable that WCAG 2.0 level A be required somewhere for W3C specs?

dom: pubrules already covers this, for WCAG 1.0 level A

karl: re xml:id
... thanks for Dave's analysis
... xml:id is probably going to be the 1st spec to be fully compliant with SpecGL
... They've been very responsive to our comments

SpecGL issues processing

karl: I proposed a new text for the section on error mechanisms
... wrt 4.5 GP A, in response to Ian Hickson's comment
... about the lack of definition of "must understand" / "must ignore"

[failing comments from the WG, this is pushed back to a next teleconf]

karl: getting onto bug 1087
... the WAI CG would like us to asks to address accessibility in specifications
... we already had that comment 2 years ago
... and we said it was out of scope of our document

Mark: as a general rule, I don't think we address content

Lynne: her argument was that to write a good spec, you need to address accessibility
... but I agress with Karl that this out of scope

dom: what about putting this in an informal section?

mark: but then we'll get flamed for not mentioning this or that

dom: we can always put an appropriate disclaimer

karl: I wouldn't put it in a GP, since that would be untestable

lynne: what about putting in the scope section?

mark: but it's clearly out of scope

tim: but accessibility is important to have in mind when designing a spec

karl: but the list can get on for ever
... it is indeed important to address a wide variety of topics
... but they're not related to what we try to do in SpecGL

tim: what about putting somewhere in an informative part?

mark: there are 2 levels to this
... we don't want to require specs to address security, accessibility
... although I see no problem in saying that specs should be accessible

karl: but what the WAI CG asked was about topics addressed in the spec
... I like Lynne's proposal to put that in the scope section

dom: I like the idea
... I think we should take the opportunity to say also that it's a good idea to address topics like "accessibility, device independent, i18n, security", etc

ACTION: Lynne to propose an addition to scope wrt accessibility, etc being out of scope but worth having in mind by 2005-02-16

karl: next issue, 1089

karl: questions about classes of products wrt "who or what" being clarified as "who and/or what"

Lynne: I think just changing to "and/or" is enough

[agreemnt on this]

RESOLUTION: changed 2.2 A to "and/or"

karl: issue 1091, dup of other issues raised by Ian Hickson, Gary Feldman
... about prose vs formal languages
... opposite views on the topics

tim: not all technologies can use formal languages

dom: I think we should avoid having a moral stance on formal language
... the current wording probably goes further than we want
... we just want to give a technical hint on how to use efficient formal languages

tim: could we just say "use formal languages if appropriate"?

mark: too vague

lynne: let's do as we did for profiles, saying "if you use formal languages" ...

dom: I agree

tim: I think the use of formal languages should be encouraged

dom: hearing what we say now about when to use formal language, I think we have a pretty definition on "if appropriate"

mark: with that and "if applicable", sounds good

dom: what about changing the title to "use formal languages if applicable" and move the priority stuff as a technique?

karl: I'll take another stab at rewriting the full good practice

ACTION: karl to rewrite GP 5.E about formal languages

tim: I got several comments that requirements and good practices were too hard to find

karl: next issue 1085, "more detailed ToC"
... agree that we should get into deeper levels

tim: [asking whether we addressed deprecation in WCAG, noting that we didn't]

RESOLUTION: the ToC should go deeper to show requirements and good practices

dom: do we have an editorial version of SpecGL yet?

karl: not yet, but I can do it

ACTION: karl to publish an editorial version of SpecGL

RESOLUTION: next teleconf next week, Monday 14 Feb

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: karl to publish an editorial version of SpecGL
[NEW] ACTION: karl to respond to the panel organizers with the name
... of our candidates
[NEW] ACTION: karl to rewrite GP 5.E about formal languages
[NEW] ACTION: karl to send background information about TP panel on extensibilty to Dave and Tim
[NEW] ACTION: Lynne to propose an addition to scope wrt accessibility, etc being out of scope but worth having in mind by 2005-02-16
[NEW] ACTION: Tim to initate the discussion in WCAG WG about the 8
... questions raised - Karl will forward specific bugs numbers
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.109 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/02/07 17:06:06 $