- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:43:14 -0700
- To: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+erkVKBjRfP6UwVYFFfUc6RRsi3gXs+ub09=+VPs+-xhA@mail.gmail.com>
conformance definitions are not compliance testing; i did not use the word "conformance"; there are (at least) four different, independent tasks here: 1. defining conformance specifications 2. defining compliance test specifications 3. performing certification (i.e., applying compliance test specifications to content, devices, etc) 4. licensing labels/brands (denoting successful certification) the W3C historically defines the first of these only; other organizations (not the W3C) have defined (2) and performed (3) and (4); i'm agreeing with Marcos and suggesting that W3C stick with (1), and to make references to both internal and external dependent specifications be non-specific (unversioned) when this makes sense, and (2) other organizations may define (2), perform (3), and license (4); in the process of defining (2), these organizations can map non-specific references to specific (versioned) references; in other words, I believe that the W3C's tasks do not necessarily have to include normatively defining specific concrete version mappings for dependent spec references; this can be accomplished in (2), which need not be done by the W3C (and indeed has not been done historically, i.e., defining the criteria for successful certification); cheers, G. On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Jean-Claude Dufourd < jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote: > On 19/12/11 16:55 , Glenn Adams wrote: > >> ...However, the W3C has historically not defined compliance test >> specifications or perform compliance testing of either content, servers, or >> clients... >> > JCD: To name just the specs I know because I participated in writing them: > - SVGT 1.2 appendix D: conformance criteria > - CDF WICD 1.0 appendix C: conformance > > Then, two randomly selected RECs: > - XML1.1 section 5 Conformance > - XML Schema 2001 section 2.4 Conformance > > Or do you mean "historically" as "in the early 90s" ? > > I believe you are confusing "certification" which W3C never tried AFAIK, > with "conformance" which is in all currently developed specs I have looked > at. > Best regards > JC > > -- > JC Dufourd > Directeur d'Etudes/Professor > Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group > Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing > Telecom ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, France > Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144 > > >
Received on Monday, 19 December 2011 16:44:14 UTC