W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > February 2007

Good (and Bad) practices of implementation reports

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:12:44 +0900
Message-Id: <4D63D0A1-CFB0-4D45-B4B7-735DFA4AB054@w3.org>
Cc: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, "Snorre M. Grimsby" <snorre@opera.com>, Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>, "Lynne S. Rosenthal" <lsr@email.nist.gov>, "Mark W. Skall" <mark.skall@nist.gov>
To: www-qa@w3.org

Hi Lofton, Snorre, Lynne, Mark, Patrick,
(and others)

I would like  to have your opinions about Implementation Reports.

Short reminder:

    During the CR phase[2], usually it is requested from WGs to prove  
that their language has been implemented /at least/ twice. Rules can  
be made stricter by the WG itself. Often WGs produce an  
implementation report to have a global view of implementations  
landscape.  The QA Matrix[3] lists W3C implementation reports[1] and  
shows their diversity in terms of layouts and information.

    - What should contain an implementation report?
    - What shoud NOT contain an implementation report?
    - Do you think a common format is desirable?
    - Do you have success or bad stories when creating an  
implementation report?

[1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/ImplementationReport
[2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#cfi
[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/TheMatrix


Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 03:12:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:37 UTC