- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:33:45 +0000
- To: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Monday, December 19, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote: > On 18/12/11 20:31 , Marcos Caceres wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 18, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote: > > > > > Undated references (what you are suggesting) has the MAJOR PROBLEM that it makes it DIFFICULT/IMPOSSIBLE to do validation of any product that claims conformance to a standard – since it's impossible to determine which version of each undated reference they used. > > That's a FEATURE, not a "problem". Makes it inexcusable not to keep up with specs (same design built into HTML5, SVG, etc.). > > > JCD: How can you seriously state something like this ? Because it's a fact. Go and look at the specs. > It is so naive to think such hand waving on the spec will have any > effect on how businesses adopt it and use it. I'm not handwaving. I'm just pointing out a fact. And I don't see how you can call me naive, when it's you that hasn't even looked at the specs. > > See also how this de-cupling worked for XML: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2011OctDec/0192.html > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2011OctDec/0201.html > > > > > Additionally, it makes interoperability difficult/impossible since you can have multiple valid conforming implementations BUT they don't actually interoperate due to changes between revisions (and algo changes would be a good example of such an interoperability issue). > > I don't see how that is possible: if your spec does not conform to /latest/, then you are non-conforming. > > > JCD: No! It means the spec is broken. No it's not. > Just because you decide on a new "definition" of conformance does not > mean it is shared by everyone. I didn't redefine conformance (or you don't know what conformance is?). Conformance: passing tests in a test suite. Tests represent conformance requirements in a specification. Test may be buggy. Spec may be buggy. > Regards > JC > (speaking as coordinator of conformance in all MPEG standards between > 1998 and 2006) Are you telling me that every test in the MPEG test suite was perfect and none have been changed after it became a standard? Or that no new tests needed to be added? Or that implementers found no issues with the MPEG specs?
Received on Monday, 19 December 2011 11:34:26 UTC