W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mwts@w3.org > September 2009

Re: [widgets] Conformance Checker assertions spec

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:09:13 +0200
Message-ID: <b21a10670909291009o3fb9fa6xe5c2e73b6103c1dd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: public-mwts <public-mwts@w3.org>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote:
> Le mardi 29 septembre 2009 à 18:18 +0200, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
>> Given that the Widget test suite event did not create tests for
>> conformance checker (CC) related assertions, I have moved all
>> conformance checker assertions from the P&C Test Suite edition to a
>> new document [1].
>
> FWIW, we chose not to create test assertions for conformance checkers
> since it seemed to us that the most important and urgent needs were for
> user agents, rather than conformance checkers.
>
> (logically speaking, I don't think this can be taken as a reason for
> removing the CC test assertions - I think they are both a consequences
> of conformance checkers interoperability being less important to the
> market at this stage than UA interop).
>
>> Thirdly, we don't have anyone committing to implement the assertions,
>> which potentially delays the progression of this specification to Rec.
>>
>> Moving the CC assertions to their own spec allows them to, obviously,
>> be standardized independently.
>>
>> The CC assertions are important and deserve their own specification -
>> they also need to be done properly, with collaboration of
>> implementers.
>
> I think this makes sense; I personally think that the conformance
> checker requirements could probably be published as a note rather than
> as a rec - since again, the needs for interoperability at that level
> don't seem all that great just now.

I still think them important enough to be Rec worthy. However, without
anyone willing to put their hand up to implement, I will concur. As
you say, there is no hurry at this point wrt conformance checking so
we can sit on it for a bit.

>> I again ask the working group to endorse this move as we move P&C to PR.
>> [1]   http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html
>
> For what it's worth, given that:
>  * P&C has been vastly rewritten
>  * test results collection hasn't started (AFAIK)
>  * you're suggesting to remove a bunch of conformance requirements which
> could be assessed as a substantive change
> I think it might be worth pushing P&C to a short Last Call period (3
> weeks), asking to focus only on the changes since CR, and then when the
> implementation reports are finalized, ask to go to PR directly.
>

This is exactly what I am personally aiming for.

Steps needed to implement the master plan...

1. get approval formally to remove CC assertions
2. finish test verification
3. removed redundancies identified during testing
4. collate final text-suite.xml
5. republish as LC
6. create implementation report*
7. PR

Kind regards,
Marcos
-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 17:10:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 September 2009 17:10:29 GMT