W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > October 2003

Re: Idea for participation in WWW2004 (longish)

From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:58:32 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: david_marston@us.ibm.com, www-qa-wg@w3.org

I think the panel is an excellent idea.  We need to keep waving the 
flag.  This would be an ideal forum to make, yet again, many of the key 
points we've been espousing.  However, in this panel forum, we can 
(hopefully) get other non-biased people to make those points for us.


At 03:10 PM 10/6/2003 -0400, david_marston@us.ibm.com wrote:

>I noted the Call for Participation for WWW2004 [1] and looked for ways
>that I or QAWG could participate, aiming to broaden the buy-in for the
>Guidelines documents and other activities to come. Given the rapid pace
>of the QA work, I think a panel is a good idea. See [2] for more details
>about what they want for panels. The proposed panel is a supplement to
>whatever the W3C Team may propose to cover in their W3C Track. Below is
>a first attempt to scope out the proposal. Lofton indicated that QAWG
>should discuss this and accept/decline/modify at the next telecon.
>The panel addresses the theme of "Performance and Reliability" but also
>fits the "Web Engineering" theme. Note also that "Web Standards - de
>facto vs. de jure" is a suggested panel topic. My thinking is that test
>materials sanctioned by a WG broaden the reliability of the *specs*
>issued by the WG and allow Web practitioners to get a stronger sense of
>reliability in using newer specs. Ideally, one of the panel members
>would represent a technology whose WG has been especially good at buying
>into the QAWG guidelines. A secondary theme is that test cases build on
>use cases to give practitioners a reliable, possibly even adaptable, set
>of known-working practices.
>The request in [2] for controversies can be satisfied by the de facto vs.
>de jure theme applied to all the standards of "goodness" that various
>people want to impose (de jure) through QAWG guidelines. i.e., Is the Web
>getting better fast enough? Do SHOULD statements in the spec have enough
>moral authority?
>Now I'll address their design points for a panel....
>Intended audience: implementers and users of Web standards, especially
>those who rely on conformance and interoperability.
>Detailed topic: discussing how the W3C (through WGs) will present a more
>integrated view of its requirements in the future, by providing tests in
>addition to specs. This is hard to do with volunteer/contributed efforts
>in the WGs.
>Take-home message: WGs are being pressured to expand their work to a new
>plateau of testable specs integrated with tests. These tests are not just
>for implementers to debate fine points. Interop will be served.
>Panel: mix of points of view among a purist/idealist, pragmatist, victim
>of poor past practices, implementer of a W3C spec, possibly a spec editor,
>possibly a trainer/author. (Other ideas?) Moderator is a QA professional.
>Advance coordination: collect up lessons learned the hard way. Get some
>good and bad examples involving W3C specs.
>Assurance of liveliness: any discussion of standards vs. proprietary
>approaches is a good stimulus. Some companies want to support standards
>yet use license terms to prohibit reporting of test results. How is Web
>interop faring in 2003?
>BTW, I have experience in pushing panels to talk to each other, not just
>separately in the same room. That seems to be very important to the Panels
>..................David Marston

Mark Skall
Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970

Voice: 301-975-3262
Fax:   301-590-9174
Email: skall@nist.gov
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2003 09:58:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:31 UTC