W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > July 2006

Re: Draft: WebCGM 2.0 CR version cover page

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:52:21 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>,WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Hi Thierry,

Thanks for getting this started.

I have one comment for now, embedded...

At 10:02 AM 7/26/2006 +0200, Thierry MICHEL wrote:

>I have drafted a WebCGM 2.0 CR version cover page.
>Apart from the mandatory W3C info in the "Status of this Document" 
>section, I have written the following exit criteria:
>The WebCGM Working Group expects to request that the Director advance this 
>document to Proposed Recommendation when the following exit criteria have 
>been met:
>1. Sufficient reports of implementation experience have been gathered to 
>demonstrate that the WebCGM 2.0 features are implementable and are 
>interpreted in a consistent manner. To do so, the Working Group will 
>insure that all features in the WebCGM 2.0 specification have been 
>implemented at least twice in an interoperable way. This defines this as :
>     * the implementations have been developed independently,
>     * each test in the WebCGM 2.0 test suite has at least two passing 
> implementations.

We should pay attention to a subtlety of wording here.  WebCGM 2.0 includes 
the functionality of WebCGM 1.0, plus new stuff for 2.0.  The WebCGM 2.0 TS 
includes the WebCGM 1.0 TS, plus new 2.0 tests.

WebCGM 2.0 is not a "delta" specification, and neither is the WebCGM 2.0 
Test Suite a "delta" (in my view of things).  On the other hand I think 
this exit criterion does need to be "delta".  I.e., there should be two 
passing implementations for every *new* 2.0 feature.

Why?  Because 1.0 is already a Recommendation, since 1999.  That was before 
the present CR/exit-criteria stuff was part of W3C process/convention 
(correct?).  Although I fully expect that there are at least two "pass" for 
every one of the existing 254 1.0 tests, on the other hand it is somewhat 
academic, because we can't rescind features of the 1.0 Recommendation if not.

Viewed another way, we shouldn't attempt "ex post facto" to apply more 
recent W3C Process conventions to content of existing Recommendations.

(All)  Does this make sense?

>2. The Working Group releases a public test suite for WebCGM 2.0 along 
>with an implementation report.
>The WebCGM 2.0 test suite will provide at least one test case for any new 
>feature introduced in WebCGM 2.0, covering the new DOM-related and XCF 
>features, and the new static and "intelligence" featuresDraftdraft.
>The Working Group expect that no feature has been identified as at risk at 
>this point.
>If we have no incoming Last Call comments tomorrow to deal with, we may 
>discuss these exit criteria:

Yes, it is on the just-sent agenda.

Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2006 20:52:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:38 UTC