- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:13:54 -0700
- To: Caveman <hoffmankeith@hotmail.com>
- Cc: Miles Sabin <msabin@cromwellmedia.co.uk>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:54:58PM -0500, Caveman wrote: > I just want to put my two cents into this conversation: > > I think the idea of doing compliancy testing is great. And the idea of > having one "check everything test" is also a good thought. However, how do > we guarantee that the test scenarios created are actually following the > "specs"? > > I think this is something better left to outside agencies to address. The > testing game tends to get to be too industry biased. Whether intentionally > or not you will see tests similar to this proposed one done and get totally > different results depending on who does it. > > I know this actually sounds like a good argument to create a "standard > test", but in my opinion this leads the doorway too wide open to start > skewing the tests in favor of one manufacturer/developer vs. another one. I > realize that there are currently many industry leaders involved in this > organization and they provide valuable insights. However, they are just > involved in the CREATION of standards, not in judging the conformance to > them. > > In short, while this is a good idea with the best interests of everyone in > mind, I think this is probably stepping outside of the charter of the > organization. These are pretty much the arguments that I remember people making at WREC in Pittsburgh, and I think it's a good point. This is why I'm holding out hope for the W3C... -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 7 October 2000 14:16:11 UTC