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: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:57:06 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

At 09:52 AM 7/27/2006 +0200, Thierry MICHEL wrote:

>Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>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).
>I agree. And btw W3C does not favor delta specs.
>  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.
>Yes this is exactly what I had in mind,


>and this is why I wrote:
>"each test in the WebCGM 2.0 test suite has at least two passing 
>"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" feature."

Fine, we are on the same page.  The two statements taken together say it 


>Assuming the new features do not impact old WebCGM features, which I 
>believe is the case.
>FYI, the SMIL 2.1 spec we had the same use case [1]:
>- A spec 2.1 adding features to a 2.0 spec (but not a delta spec in terms 
>of edition)
>- A 2.1 testsuite listing only the new features of SMIL 2.1.
>- The implementation report listed only the new features, as previous 2.0 
>features were of course well implemented.
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-SMIL2-20050513/
>>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?
>It sure does and will save a lot of time.
>>>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.
>Thierry Michel
Received on Thursday, 27 July 2006 13:57:14 UTC

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