Section B.1 Scope of the specification. This Good Practice has not been drafted yet.
Not done yet.
No Resolution yet.
Add a good example of an ICS claim.
Lynne Rosenthal has proposed an example for ICS claim: WCAG 1.0.
Karl Dubost to add the WCAG 1.0 example.
ISSUE: Björn Höhrmann has raised an important issue about the way normative references are given and their implications on the normativity of the specification itself. An short abstract of the issue can be foreseen as:
The QA WG is still discussing the issue. You are welcome to participate on the QA IG Mailing list (www-qa@w3.org publicly archived), but read first this two mail threads:
Lynne has proposed to remove it. Karl, Lofton, Dom think that we should modify the wording to rephrase it and capture the ideas of Björn.
Karl Dubost to write a proposal on the mailing-list. Deadline: 2004-08-27
David Marston makes a difference between usual modules and core module. Karl Dubost thinks it's just a specialization or naming not a functionnal difference.
Should it be a topic for Spec GL or Variability in Specifications?
From monolithic specification, WG are producing more and more multi-documents specifications. Each document being having its own life with dependencies with others. Though the division in many documents is not necessary a functionnal division (module, profile, level), but it could be a topic division. Let's imagine for example that the conformance section of a technology is one document. How to make clear where and when the conformance section or sections should go?
David Marston: "when a document is separate from another with which it was originally thought to be associated, it takes on a life of its own. "
David Marston: 3. Each Recommendation addresses conformance. Those that don't specify behavior of a Class of Product may simply say that they are informative, but beware: even defining terms or stating principles can be normative if some other document could cite the terms or principles normatively. If your WG issues several Recommendations and some refer normatively to others in the set, try to isolate a Class of Product in each Rec and anticipate that other Recs may cite any individual Rec normatively.
Do we label each section of the specification as normative or informative and at which level of details.
In the remodeling of specification guidelines, one of the practice was recommending to put the normative language definition in the conformance section. Does the normative language should be defined under the conformance clause and only the conformance clause.
Good Practice: In the conformance clause, define how normative language is expressed.
It is not decided if it should be finally suppressed with a rewording of the another section or kept as it is.
Lofton Henderson: support the idea that it could stay where it is, as long as there is a link to it from the Conformance Clause.
Dominique Hazaël Massieux: mean how "conformance requirements are expressed"; I don't know what we would mean by "normative language", e.g. how does "normative language" relate to "normative content"
David Marston has given a detailed list of techniques to for helping people to define conformance claim.
Karl: Do we want to go that far and that detailed?
ISSUE: Topic still in discussion by the WG
Extensions must not contradict or negate conformance to the specification. If it conformed without the extension, conformance should hold true with the extension. A coordination with the TAG and Web Architecture document has to be done.
Karl: The principle has to be written. A coordination with the TAG is in the process.
Glancing quickly through the QA June F2F minutes and comparing it with the QA Specification Guidelines, it appears that most of the decisions we took wrt editorial comments for SpecGL haven't been implemented in the text yet; so, one of the issues that needs to be solved before going to last call is to actually implement them.
Dom has precised in an additional email the nature of the comments which have been forgotten. This mail includes:
Karl has proposed the following resolutions:
Karl has made a list of all statements, they have to be reviewed for their clarity. Look at the thread.
Karl has proposed the following resolutions:
The "Why Care" may sometimes not completely address the benefits of the Good Practice and the principle, they are explaining.
It is needed to revise all "Why Care" using the following template.
When your review "Why Care?", think about the benefits for:
The Techniques are numbered. Sometimes it seems that there is 1 techniques with multiple steps. Other times, there are multiple techniques (1 step each). We need to devise a better numbering scheme. Perhaps:
Karl will fix in the next Editors Draft of Spec GL (Member Only)
Comment
A proposal by Lynne Rosenthal should be made before the next version of the specification which will be a Last Call. Expected Deadline: 2004-10-10