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 13:37:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4EEF2FFA.4010403@telecom-paristech.fr>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
CC: public-webapps@w3.org
Marcos

You are replying beside the point everywhere.
Please read again what Leonard wrote about undated references. Leonard 
is right.
In ISO specs, undated references are forbidden. There is a team of 
people (called ITTF) whose job includes checking these things and 
bugging spec editors to fix them.
There is such a thing as certification. It is impossible to do if the 
spec is not fixed, including references.

What you are advocating is entirely counterproductive given the source 
of the discussion (= a PAG): if the spec has undated references, you 
cannot make sure it is royaltee-free. If the scope of one reference 
changes, there is a new risk. It is not only a problem of conformance 
testing.

Your vision of "fluid" standards is completely unmanageable in practice.
Regards
JC

On 19/12/11 12:33 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
> 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?
>
>


-- 
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 12:37:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:49 GMT