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