Re: draft of 2.1 TS and implementation report document

Hi Thierry,

Thanks for publishing these two documents and connecting them to the F2F 
meeting page.  I agree that we should not link them from the WG page yet, 
until WG approves them.  That can be a first order of business on the F2F 
agenda.

A couple of comments...

At 02:35 PM 8/13/2009 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:

>Lofton,
>
>I have published your TS21 document at
>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/2009/WebCGM21/testsuite21.html
>
>
>I have also drafted the Implementation report cover page for 21  at
>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/2009/WebCGM21/implementation-report.html
>It still needs some work. Feel free to edit it.

I plan to work with this draft a bit this week, and there may be some 
questions worth (f2f) discussion.  At the least, I can clarify the 
connection to the 2.0 IR, clarify about implementations, etc.

There is another interesting topic, perhaps for F2F discussion.  The draft 
IR says:  "For this, each test must be passed by at least two 
implementations."  However, here is what Process document section 5.4.4 [1] 
says:  "Preferably, the Working Group SHOULD be able to demonstrate two 
interoperable implementations of each feature."

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfr

We can, of course, use the stronger MUST instead of SHOULD as the WG's 
criterion, and did so on 2.0 it appears.   But it might be the case that 
2.1 has an odd case or two -- implementability is not in doubt and has been 
demonstrated once, but there are not yet two independent implementations, 
and yet we want to keep the feature and progress to PR.  (More about this 
later, perhaps at the meeting.)

So maybe we will want to change "must" to "should".  Or even change the 
sentence to something like, "For this, the default criterion of the WG -- 
unless overridden for good cause on an individual case basis by WG 
consensus -- is that each test be passed by at least two implementations."

Actually, this decision does not have to be taken right now, but we will 
need to decide by the end of the meeting.

Regards,
-Lofton.


>Both of these documents are *not* yet linked from the WG home page. Once 
>they are approved by the WG we will do so.
>
>Thierry.
>
>
>Henderson wrote:
>>P.S.  Do you think it is a problem that we start off with TS21 
>>essentially being TS20 + 21AddOn ?  Should we not discuss it (the 
>>ProfileEd detail) in the Overview document so much?  I should note that 
>>it is exactly the same as what happened with 2.0.  The initial (and 
>>final!) TS20 was essentially TS10 + 20AddOn.  We never got back to making 
>>a proper (ProfileEd-pure) TS20.
>>So ... It certainly is nice to make a proper TS21.  Is it a problem if 
>>not?  (This might be a good discussion topic for F2F.)
>>Any case, I could modify the "Versions" discussion in Overview.html if 
>>you think it raises a problem.
>>(Personally, I think the initial TS21 is perfectly functional for our 
>>purposes, just needing a bit of caveat and explanation.)
>>-Lofton.
>>
>>At 12:01 PM 8/12/2009 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>>>Lofton,
>>>
>>>I have reviewed the 2.1 TS document.
>>>
>>>It clearly explains the content of the 2.1 TS
>>>- a directory with the Webcgm 1.0 tests
>>>- a directory with the Webcgm 2.0 tests
>>>- a directory with the latest Webcgm 2.1 tests
>>>
>>>Also you made a clear mention about the WebCGM 2.1 profile  identified 
>>>by the "ProfileEd:2.1" string.
>>>
>>>
>>>So the document looks great to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just a side remark:
>>>
>>>How much work does the change to "ProfileEd:2.1" in the former Webcgm 
>>>2.0 tests represents ?
>>>I know this is a change into bin files, but I remember a WG member 
>>>offered to look into this ?
>>>
>>>If it is not too much work, this would allow to have a full 21 TS.
>>>
>>>Thierry.
>>>
>>>
>>>Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>>>[... I forgot the attachment first time...]
>>>>Hi Thierry,
>>>>For the 2.0 TS, we have this document linked from our WG home page:
>>>>http://www.w3.org/2006/Graphics/WebCGM/testsuite.html
>>>>I took that document and edited it minimally so that it works for 2.1.
>>>>For now, the draft is just for your review and comment.  After we are 
>>>>happy with it, we can add it to W3C space and link it from the WG page.
>>>>Sound good?
>>>>-Lofton.
>>>>
>>>>[...snip...somehow the whole HTML document was embedded at this point!...]
>>>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 16:16:44 UTC