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

Larry,
Despite your comments, the intent of the requirement was simply to list known implementations. Various WGs have also chosen to show the how known implementations fare with the current test available for a given application, but that is not a requirement. Knowing whether there are (two or more) implementations is useful to the various reviewers of a specification. That is why the requirement is what it is. Of course, having better documentation is also good.

Steve Zilles

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Masinter [mailto:masinter@adobe.com] 
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 9:17 AM
To: Revising W3C Process Community Group
Cc: Peter Saint-Andre
Subject: 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well enough to be useful, and the "documentation" in terms of email or a document listing implementations is out of date almost as soon as it is finished.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 Sunday, 11 August 2013 21:32:57 UTC