RE: w3process-ISSUE-38 (documenting implementation): Add a should requirement to document known implementation [Document life cycle (ch 7)]

It is quite difficult to document "known implementations" well enough to be useful, and the "documentation" in terms of email or a document listing implementations is out of date almost as soon as it is finished. 

In particular, just a list of implementations doesn't give you important information on implementation status of each feature.

http://larry.masinter.net/draft-ietf-newtrk-interop-reports-00.html

Formalizing IETF Interoperability Reports

was an attempt to separate out the responsibility on reporting implementations and interoperability. I think some kind of tracker/database/wiki  might be the best way of supporting such kind of activity, though ...  the working group develops a list of (testable) features, and implementors check of which features have been implemented and tested against test cases (for content standards) or other implementations (for protocol standards).

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
> [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:02 PM
> To: public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: w3process-ISSUE-38 (documenting implementation): Add a should
> requirement to document known implementation [Document life cycle (ch 7)]
> 
> w3process-ISSUE-38 (documenting implementation): Add a should
> requirement to document known implementation [Document life cycle (ch 7)]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/38

> 
> Raised by: Charles McCathie Nevile
> On product: Document life cycle (ch 7)
> 
> There is currently a should requirement to document known implementation
> at LCCR / Rec. It actually seems like it should be a general requirement.
> 
>

Received on Saturday, 10 August 2013 16:18:27 UTC