- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:38:36 +0100
- To: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Problem: I don't think we have time for a LC on test cases before PR as in the current schedule. I see three (slightly) realistic plans a) as in the schedule but with test cases going to Working Group Note as the spec goes to PR The test cases then has two publications - a first WD, with an initial set of tests - a WG Note with all of them b) as in the schedule, except that we move the spec to CR instead of PR. The test cases, with a complete list of tests also goes to LC at the same time. We move both to PR when the LC expires (after WWW2007) c) We delay first publication of Test Cases for another week or two, and move it to first and last call, and stick to the schedule. This would require: - finishing additional tests - adding them to the test cases documents - deligent WG review of the TC doc - (my review was for a first WD not a LC WD, I would want to do a more careful review, paying detailed attention to the wording) ==== I suppose, given the special circumstances, we could justify (c), but it is poor form. I'm making progress on creating the missing tests that the post-WG meeting discussion last week, saw as desirable. I think (a) doesn't really reflect the status of the test cases. As I see it: - a WG Note: the WG is finished, if review finds issues with this document, the WG may decide not to fix - a LC: the WG is finished, if review finds issues with this document, the WG will fix (in some way, not necessarily to the reviewer's liking) So, my usual reasoning would arrive at (b). Justifications for (c) (i) W3C resourcing issues and priorities (this is the key one) (ii) WG is very confident that we have interoperable implementations (iii) (c) as opposed to (a) gives the public a better chance to derail the process if WG is wrong I would normal ignore (ii) on procedural grounds. WGs can be wrong, and the process puts in deliberate slowness to allow this to be discovered. There is a risk with (b) that we get to CR and then fail to have the resources (particularly from the team) to get any further. However, since we already have the interoperable systems, the CR should be very short. There are many W3C test suites that either choose (a) or something even less formal. Most of the SW recs have a rec track test cases, I have previously argued the benefits of this approach: From the overly opinionated: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Jul/0004 [[ it is important that WG members who contribute to the test work are adequately acknowledged. This suggests a priority 1 guideline that there should be a recommendation track document for the test work in a WG. A good choice of editor who takes pride in their work, will be one of the best ways to ensure a deep quality to the test work. ]] Jeremy -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2007 16:39:30 UTC