- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:29:37 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
- cc: www-qa@w3.org
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
> while third party may do much better job in creating tests, final
> decision on spec interpretation should belong to W3C WG,
> regardless of whether it is the "best interpretation" or not.
I disagree. After the specs are frozen, there should be no _normative_
interpretations from W3C or any other body. Anybody can express their
opinions on what the spec means or what the specs meant to say, but
those opinions should be just that -- opinions.
If specs need interpretation, it usually means that the specs are
ambiguous and broken. Such specs should be fixed, if possible, by
releasing new versions of the specs, and not by posting normative
opinions on WG mailing lists or W3C Web sites.
> Interpretation can not be "the best", it should just come from
> single source to avoid chaos.
Ideally, there should be no need for interpretations.
In practice, many consider a self-organized chaos (e.g., nature,
democracy, or an open-source movement) to be a much more robust
architecture than a single source of failure (e.g., a dictatorship). As
it stands today, W3C is closer to a self-organized chaos. I hope it
does not try to "simplify the problem" by becoming a dictatorship.
$0.02,
Alex.
P.S. No normative interpretations are needed if there is no formal
certification process endorsed by W3C, which is the model I root
for.
Received on Friday, 19 October 2001 00:29:39 UTC