W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: QF Policy & Op guidelines

From: Andrew Thackrah <a.thackrah@opengroup.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 16:19:40 +0000
To: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020201161940.A3270@hyperion>
On 2002.01.29 07:04 Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
> Hi, Andrew!
> Thanks for raising this, we discussed these 3 points on today's telecon,
> outcome is inline (WG members, please check if I correctly summarized
> this):
> 
> >   1.
> >   Test material development. Do we have a global license for use and
> >   distribution of test materials. Or is it per-group?
> [KG] We currently address this in the checkpoint 6.3 and 7.3:
> 
> Checkpoint 6.3.Priority 2.In QA Process document, define the licenses
> applicable to submitted and published test materials.
> Note: Working Group can choose either the W3C Document or the W3C
> Software license. If applicable, W3C Document license is recommended
> 
> Checkpoint 7.3.Priority 1.If plan to transfer the test materials to W3C,
> resolve IPR questions and reach agreement with external party that
> produced test materials.
> 
> We agreed to link 7.3 from the note for 6.3, as there might be other
> licenses that the WG has to sort out with external party in case if the
> test materials were developed outside of the W3C.

OK. I wondered if the plan is for a standard license (or set of licenses)
The wording at the moment suggest that licenses will be negotiated per 
case.
Could this lead to accusations of bias?
If we provide a license up front and say "this is what your contributions
will be available under" then it could keep things simple from the
start.


> 
> >   2.
> >   Guideline 3. "...developed test materials can be used by external
> >   parties including certification services." We Need to explore the
> >   liability issues here.
> 
> [KG] We ask WG to put the following disclaimer in Checkpoint 3.3:
> Checkpoint 3.3.Priority 2.Provide disclaimer regarding use of the test
> materials for compliance verification.
> ....
> 1. passing all of the tests does not guarantee full compliance of
> implementation to specification
> 2. failing test suite means failing tests for specific feature they
> target
> 
> In fact this disclaimer raised many discussions, specifically the part
> 2. We decided to leave it as is for FPWD, in the mean time comments are
> welcome on the list.
> Argumentation for the current 2.:
>   - Existence: Disclaimer needs to be complete - if we give definition
> of what does success mean, we need to give definition of what the
> failure mean
>   - Wording: Objections were raised by Lynne and Dimitris that failing
> test means non-conformance. But everybody agreed that the term
> "non-conformance" is almost always conditional, leveled, etc. Apart of
> this "conditional" nature, formula "failed - means non-conformant"
> doesn't apply for tests for discretional behaviors - this was already
> pointed out in the current OASIS XSLT committee work.
> 


I have two cases in mind here:

  Case 1.
  Company A uses a W3C approved test suite to develop a product. They then 
release
  the product with the marketing claim "Conforms to spec X, W3C approved"


  Case 2.
  Company A sells it's product to company C. Company C finds a fault which 
costs
  them money. They blame company A. Company A discovers the fault is based 
on
  a test suite deficiency...

  Case 2 is perhaps easier to deal with using some kind of caveat emptor 
in the license.

  Case 1 is more about approval. Does the W3C approve products that pass 
their official
test suite? If not - what is the status of accepted test materials? What 
do they represent?

(currently I think the answer is yes for page validation)

  Are there any other cases?

  cheers,
  -Andrew
Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 11:20:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:09 GMT