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

Re: CR exit criteria

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:04:14 +0200
Message-ID: <1882576211.20060731170414@w3.org>
To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

On Monday, July 31, 2006, 4:36:31 PM, Benoit wrote:

BB> Hi Lofton,

BB> Friday, July 28, 2006, 6:44:46 PM, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>> At 05:04 PM 7/28/2006 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:

>>>Hi,

>>>   I've been thinking about the CR exit criteria discussion. Here's my
>>>   opinion on it.

>>>   First, I think Chris' request is reasonable (that is two
>>>   successful passes for each 1.0 and 2.0 tests).

>> I won't dispute "reasonable". But as I expressed in telecon, there
>> are equally reasonable alternative views of it. Effectively, the
>> functionality of the 1.0 subset of 2.0 is being subject to higher
>> quality criteria to be reaffirmed in 2006, than were applied to
>> accept it as Recommendation in 1999 and 2001.
BB> Right, over the years the W3C has raised the quality criteria. You can
BB> see the difference between SVG 1.0, 1.1 and soon of 1.2. It was my
BB> understanding that all new specifications are subject to these
BB> stricter rules.

And note that there has been no change in them since the WebCGM WG was chartered. 

>>  The appropriateness of that can be debated (W3C Process is silent
>> about such specifics). 

If you can find something in the process that allows just a delta to be
tested, I would be interested in a pointer. I also think that making
WebCGM2.0 into a delta specification would be most unwise.

BB> I propose we first get the results, and deal with maintenance later.

>>>   What is time consuming is if vendors provide inaccurate results;
>>>   this can't happen. Also each vendor would have to be able to provide
>>>   beta versions of their product for someone like Chris to verify the
>>>   results.

>> I object to that suggestion, unless you mean "spot check". I don't
>> have a problem with spot-check. But we should NOT require a full
>> verification of results, if that's what you mean. That is
>> inappropriate (IMO), and without precedent (AFAIK). (Not to mention
>> more work and delay.)
BB> I'm not suggesting to make it a requirement. Chris can comment about
BB> W3C policies here.

The staff needs to have confidence that tests are in fact passed. Users
of the specification also need to have confidence that the tests were in
fact passed.

This confidence is ideally produced by demonstrating any test
- especially, tests under discussion - to the whole WG.

Less optimally, but acceptable in the case of unreleased code or
commercial confidentiality, results can be demonstrated to the W3C staff
under the existing Member confidentiality agreement. Thats where 'Chris
or Thierry verify' can come in.

BB>  I expect Itedo, as a courtesy, to provide a beta
BB> version to W3C staff for the CR phase.

The courtesy would be appreciated.



-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 31 July 2006 15:04:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:09 GMT