- From: <David_Marston@lotus.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:24:55 -0400
- To: www-qa@w3.org
Kirill Gavrylyuk writes: >David, >but would you agree that, 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? Yes, I think you're describing the errata process. It appears that Mark Skall is raising a caution that an erratum that reverses the meaning of a spec is a Bad Thing. If I am interpreting his reply correctly, the WG can know "what it meant" (design rationale) and can use the errata process to fill in places where their rationale was under-expressed, but if the spec said something contrary to what the WG meant, then they (and we) are stuck with what it says. Lofton Henderson adds: >However, the length of W3C document cycle, by which corrections >and clarifications actually get published, creates another problem. >...This suggests the utility of a "normative errata" mechanism. >...Defect corrections go through a formal review and resolution >process, which is typically much shorter than >document-release cycles. I was arguing for something like this at the April QA workshop. Ideally, a developer would stumble across something that was under-specified, bring the issue to the WG, and get a *published* ruling so quickly that it would be feasible to simply suspend development in that area for a few days while awaiting the ruling. I stress "published" above because all other developers and test writers need to be aware of the ruling on a timely basis. Please keep this ideal in mind when designing a fast-turnaround erratum process. Beyond that, we need an appeals process. I propose that appeals be heard on the grounds of under-specification. You couldn't appeal an assertion in the spec on the grounds that it's a bad design, but you could appeal if your original query was in a gray area and the fast-turnaround response said that sufficient assertions already exist. The appealer would present examples where a necessary choice must be made (i.e., you can't "do both") and try to show that there are not enough assertions. The WG could defend by pointing out more assertions that pertain. Another area of appeals would be when there are conflicts between two explicit grants of developer discretion in the spec. Further discussion will be saved for another thread. .................David Marston
Received on Friday, 19 October 2001 23:26:58 UTC