W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: [widgets] How to divorce widgets-digsig from Elliptic Curve PAG?

From: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:55:35 +0100
Message-ID: <4EEEFC07.60205@telecom-paristech.fr>
To: public-webapps@w3.org
On 18/12/11 20:31 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Sunday, December 18, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
>> Undated references (what you are suggesting) has the MAJOR PROBLEM that it makes it DIFFICULT/IMPOSSIBLE to do validation of any product that claims conformance to a standard – since it's impossible to determine which version of each undated reference they used.
> That's a FEATURE, not a "problem". Makes it inexcusable not to keep up with specs (same design built into HTML5, SVG, etc.).
JCD: How can you seriously state something like this ?
It is so naive to think such hand waving on the spec will have any 
effect on how businesses adopt it and use it.

> See also how this de-cupling worked for XML:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2011OctDec/0192.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2011OctDec/0201.html
>> Additionally, it makes interoperability difficult/impossible since you can have multiple valid conforming implementations BUT they don't actually interoperate due to changes between revisions (and algo changes would be a good example of such an interoperability issue).
> I don't see how that is possible: if your spec does not conform to /latest/, then you are non-conforming.
JCD: No! It means the spec is broken.
Just because you decide on a new "definition" of conformance does not 
mean it is shared by everyone.
(speaking as coordinator of conformance in all MPEG standards between 
1998 and 2006)
> If you were conforming yesterday, but a new version of the a spec comes out tomorrow, then you update your software to conform to the latest version. As an example, almost all Browsers are on a 6 week release cycle now: so it's quite inexcusable to expect to just conform to some dates draft and then expected to never have to update the software (i.e., conformance is an ongoing "living process": specs are buggy, tests are buggy, and software is buggy… any of those can affect an conformance over time: the are all living things).
> Pretending that slapping a date on spec means anything is unhelpful (and actually harmful, because all specs contain bugs and hence must be continuously maintained).
> --
> Marcos Caceres

JC Dufourd
Directeur d'Etudes/Professor
Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing
Telecom ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, France
Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144
Received on Monday, 19 December 2011 08:56:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:37 UTC