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: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:43:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+erkVKBjRfP6UwVYFFfUc6RRsi3gXs+ub09=+VPs+-xhA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
conformance definitions are not compliance testing; i did not use the word
"conformance";

there are (at least) four different, independent tasks here:

   1. defining conformance specifications
   2. defining compliance test specifications
   3. performing certification (i.e., applying compliance test
   specifications to content, devices, etc)
   4. licensing labels/brands (denoting successful certification)

the W3C historically defines the first of these only; other organizations
(not the W3C) have defined (2) and performed (3) and (4);

i'm agreeing with Marcos and suggesting that W3C stick with (1), and to
make references to both internal and external dependent specifications be
non-specific (unversioned) when this makes sense, and (2) other
organizations may define (2), perform (3), and license (4); in the process
of defining (2), these organizations can map non-specific references to
specific (versioned) references;

in other words, I believe that the W3C's tasks do not necessarily have to
include normatively defining specific concrete version mappings for
dependent spec references; this can be accomplished in (2), which need not
be done by the W3C (and indeed has not been done historically, i.e.,
defining the criteria for successful certification);

cheers,
G.

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Jean-Claude Dufourd <
jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote:

> On 19/12/11 16:55 , Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>> ...However, the W3C has historically not defined compliance test
>> specifications or perform compliance testing of either content, servers, or
>> clients...
>>
> JCD: To name just the specs I know because I participated in writing them:
> - SVGT 1.2 appendix D: conformance criteria
> - CDF WICD 1.0 appendix C: conformance
>
> Then, two randomly selected RECs:
> - XML1.1 section 5 Conformance
> - XML Schema 2001 section 2.4 Conformance
>
> Or do you mean "historically" as "in the early 90s" ?
>
> I believe you are confusing "certification" which W3C never tried AFAIK,
> with "conformance" which is in all currently developed specs I have looked
> at.
> Best regards
> JC
>
> --
> 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 16:44:14 GMT

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