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: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:33:45 +0000
To: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <8C72346C932E4C0B9DD01395FCEC16F1@marcosc.com>

On Monday, December 19, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:

> 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 ?
Because it's a fact. Go and look at the specs.   
> It is so naive to think such hand waving on the spec will have any  
> effect on how businesses adopt it and use it.

I'm not handwaving. I'm just pointing out a fact. And I don't see how you can call me naive, when it's you that hasn't even looked at the specs.   

> > 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.
 No it's not.   
> Just because you decide on a new "definition" of conformance does not  
> mean it is shared by everyone.

I didn't redefine conformance (or you don't know what conformance is?). Conformance: passing tests in a test suite. Tests represent conformance requirements in a specification. Test may be buggy. Spec may be buggy.  

> Regards
> JC
> (speaking as coordinator of conformance in all MPEG standards between  
> 1998 and 2006)

Are you telling me that every test in the MPEG test suite was perfect and none have been changed after it became a standard? Or that no new tests needed to be added? Or that implementers found no issues with the MPEG specs?  
Received on Monday, 19 December 2011 11:34:26 UTC

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