14:46:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #qa
14:46:08 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/05/16-qa-irc
14:46:17 <dom> Meeting: QA Working Group Teleconf
14:46:21 <dom> RRSAgent, make log public
14:46:26 <dom> Chair: Karl
14:46:30 <dom> Scribe: Dom
14:47:00 <dom> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005May/0050.html
14:47:07 <dom> Regrets: Lynne
14:58:59 <Zakim> QA_QAWG()11:00AM has now started
14:59:04 <karl> zakim, call karl-work
14:59:04 <Zakim> ok, karl; the call is being made
14:59:06 <Zakim> +??P3
14:59:35 <karl> zakim, call karl-work
14:59:35 <Zakim> ok, karl; the call is being made
14:59:35 <Zakim> +Dom
14:59:36 <Zakim> +Karl
15:00:00 <dom> Zakim, ??P3 is Richard
15:00:00 <Zakim> +Richard; got it
15:00:18 <Zakim> +Patrick
15:01:00 <Zakim> +Tim_Boland
15:01:40 <lofton> zakim, please call lofton
15:01:40 <Zakim> ok, lofton; the call is being made
15:01:41 <Zakim> +Lofton
15:02:38 <Zakim> +Dimitris
15:04:03 <Zakim> +[IBMCambridge]
15:04:09 <dom> agenda+ formal agreement to request SpecGL transition to PR
15:04:21 <Zakim> +MSkall
15:04:22 <dom> Zakim, [IBMCambridge] is really DaveMarston
15:04:22 <Zakim> +DaveMarston; got it
15:04:37 <dom> zakim, take agendum 1
15:04:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'take agendum 1', dom
15:04:43 <dom> zakim, take next agendum
15:04:43 <Zakim> I don't understand 'take next agendum', dom
15:04:48 <dom> zakim, next agendum
15:04:48 <Zakim> agendum 1. "formal agreement to request SpecGL transition to PR" taken up [from dom]
15:05:04 <dom> karl: any disagreement wrt to requesting transition to PR
15:05:08 <dom> ...?
15:05:19 <dom> tim: how do we look in terms of implementation?
15:05:34 <dom> karl: the current implementation report is good enough
15:06:14 <dom> ... so unless anybody wants to go back to making more spec reviews to check...
15:06:38 <dom> dom: the schedule is only set by ourselves, so if you want moer time for gathering experiences, that's acceptable
15:07:06 <dom> tim: I trust the W3C process will assess whether we have enough implementation
15:07:31 <dom> ... we could always gather more reports, but if you feel what we have now is sufficient, that's fine with me
15:07:33 <lofton> +q
15:07:38 <lofton> q+
15:07:53 <dom> mark: difficult to guess whether this is good enough
15:08:20 <dom> lofton: I think we should go to the teleconf with the attitude that we have enough implementation reports
15:08:47 <dom> ... in the few places where implementation is thin, I think we can argue that these are guidelines, independently of whether they were already in use
15:08:53 <dom> ... SpecGL is different from CSS or DOM
15:09:20 <dom> mark: plus, we have conversed with people, had many comments, have worked hard on the issues, have rewritten the doc
15:09:40 <dom> karl: xml:id plays in our favour, too
15:10:02 <dom> ... their ICS went from very bad to SpecGL compliant through discussions
15:10:14 <dom> ... it shows that this can be achieved
15:10:49 <dom> dimitris: reading the implementation report, it's patent that SPecGl availability has actually improved the specifications over time
15:12:09 <dom> tim: do all the issues have to be resolved?
15:12:17 <dom> dom: all our issues are resolved
15:12:27 <dom> ... although some commenters disagree with our resolutions
15:12:35 <dom> ... still trying to negotiate with Ian
15:12:48 <dom> ... but even if there is disagreement, we can go to PR
15:12:59 <dom> karl: I've replied to Ian with more details this morning
15:13:04 <dom> ... hasn't reached the archives yet
15:13:33 <dom> RESOLVED: QA WG requests transition of SpecGL to PR
15:13:57 <dom> Topic: Test FAQ Published
15:14:05 <dom> karl: Test FAQ was published last week
15:14:10 <dom> ... bravo to Patrick and others
15:14:17 <dom> ... it was announced on the chairs mailing list
15:14:31 <dom> Tim: I've forwarded the announcement to WG I'm involved in
15:14:45 <dom> Karl: It's a good thing to promote it insided W3C WG
15:14:58 <dom> ... but promoting it outside W3C is also nice
15:15:11 <dom> ... if you have opportunities, please do
15:15:15 <dom> dom: any feedback yet?
15:15:36 <dom> patrick: no feedback at this time
15:15:51 <dom> tim: what's the process/schedule to integrated feedback?
15:16:07 <dom> karl: no specific schedule; we update it when we receive feedback that we want to incorporate
15:16:28 <dom> patrick: feedback address given in doc is www-qa-wg
15:16:51 <dom> karl: we can republish and make additions to the document when we need
15:17:19 <dom> mark: any other specific ideas to promote it? Conferences, this kind of opportunities coming up?
15:17:28 <dom> karl: always good to do it at conferences
15:17:47 <dom> ... another good way is to introduce it in small bits
15:18:04 <dom> ... e.g. addressing a question in a mailing list with a pointer to the document
15:18:10 <dom> ... can help attract readers
15:18:28 <dom> dave: the testing faq has already been publicized to the XQuery Test TF
15:18:46 <dom> ... don't know how many WGs have test moderators or task force
15:19:06 <dom> ... there could be a cross-WG mailing lists to contact editors
15:19:21 <dom> karl: xmlspec could also be used as a link to the FAQ
15:20:05 <dom> tim: the WCAG techniques tf is working on testing issues
15:20:18 <dom> ... I can see the utility of the test faq in that context
15:20:44 <dom> patrick: I like the idea to point to specific answers and questions
15:20:48 <dom> topic: Dublin hotel
15:20:56 <dom> patrick: somebody looking it up for me
15:20:58 <dom> ... it's coming
15:21:14 <dom> Topic: Variability in Specification
15:21:27 <dom> karl: Dave has a proposal to reorganise the document
15:22:02 <dom> DaveM: should there be a mention of some of these dimensions by citation over to SpecGL where they're already fully explained or should there be a repeat of the material? or another approach?
15:23:25 <dom> dom: if we have nothing new to say about extensibility in ViS, I suggest dropping the section
15:23:30 <dom> ... and linking to SpecGl
15:23:43 <dom> Dave: so indeed extensibility could go away
15:23:56 <dom> ... except for interrelationships between DoV
15:24:24 <dom> karl: would it be possible to create templates to develop each of these DoV
15:24:32 <dom> ... with questions to be addressed for each DoV
15:24:42 <dom> ... ? this could help people to write content
15:25:09 <dom> ... we could then use the wiki to get content
15:25:25 <dom> tim: is ViS considered a specification?
15:25:37 <dom> lofton: the SOTD says it's destined to be a WG Note
15:26:07 <dom> mark: not clear to me how do we envision ViS to be used
15:26:18 <dom> ... don't know how we can make decisions like this without having this vision
15:26:45 <dom> dave: when ViS was started, the idea was to collect advanced topics that wouldn't fit in the spirit of SpecGL
15:27:08 <dom> mark: so, read this document to learn more about the issues regarding variability
15:27:30 <dom> dave: this doesn't imply whether this should go rec-track or not
15:27:42 <dom> mark: if that's the model, I don't know why we wouldn't talk about extensions
15:28:21 <dom> ... the extensions are important enough to be there
15:28:28 <dom> dom: but we don't have anything new to that
15:28:40 <dom> mark: but even a regurgitation of what's in SpecGL could fit
15:28:50 <dom> ... it would be too bad if it wasn't there
15:29:10 <dom> karl: my vision of ViS is a kind of encyclopedia vs SpecGL a technical framework
15:30:03 <dom> ... what are the big/high-level issues wrt developing a specification
15:30:18 <dom> dave: so, is there agreement that ViS is dependent of SpecGL
15:30:38 <dom> ... and thus would assume that the reader has read SpecGL first
15:31:16 <dom> karl: do we want to require this?
15:31:26 <dom> dave: we could avoid it, but that would need more work
15:32:29 <dom> dom: if we can avoid it, I'd rather, but that's only a nice thing to have IMO
15:32:58 <dom> ... please note that we don't have many cycles to make progress on this doc, so we need to practical on how it goes forward
15:33:06 <dom> dave: here is a proposal
15:33:32 <dom> ... we keep a section on each DoV, with a small paragraph e.g. for extensions
15:34:03 <dom> lofton: I wonder why each section doesn't link to the matching SpecGL section?
15:34:30 <dom> ... eg profile/module/level don't link back to SpecGL
15:35:46 <dom> dave: some DoV are so little developed in SpecGL (e.g PLM) while others are much more expanded (e.g. extensibility)
15:36:00 <dom> dom: no link back is mostly an editorial oversight, I think
15:36:14 <dom> lofton: so this link back could be the basis for the placeholders
15:36:26 <dom> dave: so ViS would address all the DoV
15:36:59 <dom> ... since there are consensus on that, we can go on to what should be the sequences of chapters
15:37:42 <dom> ... currently, the sequencing in ViS is CoP, Profile/Modules/levels, extensibility, optional features
15:38:01 <dom> ... extensibility should be last wrt to ordering of DoV
15:38:23 <dom> lofton: deprecated features shouldn't be taken as part of optional features
15:38:39 <dom> dave: how do people feel having several DoV in just one chapter?
15:38:44 <dom> tim: what would the title be?
15:38:53 <dom> dave: I don't have a proposal off the top of my head
15:39:34 <dom> ... it may be better to have deprecation and optional features separated
15:39:40 <dom> dom: I think it would be clearer
15:40:01 <dom> dave: ok; but then why having profiles/modules/level bound together
15:40:43 <dom> dom: profiles/modules/levels were bound because they were all subdivisions
15:40:55 <dom> ... but I don't think we would lose much by separating them
15:41:16 <dom> dave: current spec would flow well with this
15:41:20 <dom> ... except for umbrella specs
15:41:30 <dom> ... that we could move to modules
15:41:58 <dom> ... let's see when we get back to discussing umbrella specs
15:42:26 <dom> karl: how would like to proceed to edit the different parts and get contributions?
15:42:49 <dom> dave: I think we should concentrate on getting a document published in a later version
15:43:03 <dom> ... with the placeholders of extensions and deprecations
15:43:34 <dom> ... and we would cut the PML section in 3... we would need to move the intro of PML somewhere else
15:43:49 <dom> ... would need your help, karl, to do the technical editing
15:43:58 <dom> karl: what about contributions? who should contribute?
15:44:19 <Zakim> -Richard
15:44:23 <dom> dave: if someone wants to write a quick paragraph on extensibility and deprecations, good
15:44:27 <dom> ... but otherwise, I'll do it
15:45:01 <dom> karl: what schedule to envision for this?
15:45:18 <dom> ... also, if you can consider creating a template for the various parts, this would be really useful
15:45:32 <dom> dave: I think this would be for another pass to the document
15:45:56 <dom> ... I need a week to do the transformations we mentioned before
15:46:57 <dom> ... if everybody agrees, it may be ready to go as early as after next week teleconf
15:47:14 <dom> ... also, is there any feedback on my proposed rewrite?
15:47:21 <dom> karl: please comment on the mailing list
15:47:44 <dom> Topic: Umbrella Specification and Profiles 
15:47:59 <dom> Karl: Tim asked whether profiles were umbrella specifications or not
15:48:20 <dom> ... I think not, although I'm not necessarily objecting to it
15:48:31 <dom> ... Dom thought they were
15:48:40 <dom> ... but wondered what we wanted to do with this concept
15:49:01 <dom> Tim: what about specifications that may point to several technologies? how do we defined technology?
15:49:12 <dom> karl: as CDF - compound document format?
15:49:25 <dom> tim: there is a tendency to bind technologies together
15:50:31 <dom> karl: it's very rare that specifications don't rely on other technologies
15:50:46 <dom> ... what do you expect from umbrella specs?
15:52:05 <dom> dom: I guess my question was really why do we define this concept if we don't say anything about it?
15:52:25 <dom> karl: origin of this is "how to move forward a technology defined in many pieces?"
15:53:55 <dom> dave: there are already wg producing umbrella specifications
15:54:09 <dom> dom: the fact they exist isn't enough
15:54:24 <dom> ... again, there is nothing said except the definition about umbrella specs
15:54:42 <dom> karl: another related topic is whether defining a module without an umbrella spec is good or not
15:55:02 <dom> ... the example came because of CSS3
15:56:36 <dom> ... we probably need to discuss it more on the mailing list
15:56:54 <dom> ACTION: karl to give a better outline of the issue and to move forward the discussion on umbrella specs
15:58:29 <dom> Topic: Taxonomy of tests
15:58:43 <dom> dom: was developed by Daniel back in 2001
15:58:58 <dom> ... lofton asked whether we still agree with this classification
15:59:16 <dom> ... and patrick wonders whether and how this should be integrated in the FAQ
15:59:46 <dom> patrick: this addresses the "testing approaches" question
15:59:57 <dom> ... I'll send specific suggestions/questions to www-qa-wg
16:00:11 <dom> dave: I'll have comments if it gets related to category of specifications
16:00:22 <dom> ... it may be outmoded by the refinements we've gone through
16:00:47 <Zakim> -Tim_Boland
16:00:48 <Zakim> -DaveMarston
16:00:48 <Zakim> -Patrick
16:00:50 <Zakim> -Dimitris
16:00:52 <Zakim> -MSkall
16:00:58 <Zakim> -Lofton
16:01:00 <dom> Next teleconf: next week
16:01:00 <Zakim> -Karl
16:01:03 <Zakim> -Dom
16:01:04 <Zakim> QA_QAWG()11:00AM has ended
16:01:05 <Zakim> Attendees were Dom, Karl, Richard, Patrick, Tim_Boland, Lofton, Dimitris, MSkall, DaveMarston
16:01:07 <dom> Zakim, bye
16:01:07 <Zakim> Zakim has left #qa
16:01:11 <dom> RRSAgent, make log public
16:01:20 <dom> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:01:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/05/16-qa-minutes.html dom
16:01:31 <dom> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:01:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/05/16-qa-minutes.html dom
16:11:24 <dom> RRSAgent, bye
16:11:24 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item:
16:11:24 <RRSAgent> ACTION: karl to give a better outline of the issue and to move forward the discussion on umbrella specs [1]
16:11:24 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/16-qa-irc#T15-56-54