W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > May 2016

Re: IG charter - alpha 4

From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 22:34:13 +0200
Cc: "Kovatsch, Matthias" <matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com>, Takuki Kamiya <tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com>, 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr>, Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, "J. Alan Bird" <abird@w3.org>
Message-Id: <003AE0FE-9897-4CE0-A73C-4BD80E6A7D36@w3.org>
To: Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>

> On 27 May 2016, at 13:35, Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org> wrote:
> [jumping in after having read Jonathan's latest mails on this - I think there's been some confusion]
> On 5/25/2016 10:30 AM, Dave Raggett wrote:
>> Just to note that while WGs are required to produce test suites and to publish implementation reports for transitioning from Candidate Recommendation to Proposed Recommendation, WGs do not normally work on interoperability testing.
> They do - the "rule of thumb" is that the implementation report has to show "two interoperable implementations of each feature" in a spec - that's "interoperability testing" (at least to some extent)

This is covered by the W3C Process requirements.  In essence, the need to prepare test suites for specifications and to prepare implementation reports. The exit criteria for Candidate Recommendations are declared in the specifications, not in the WG charters.

> What WGs really don't work on is *conformance* testing - because that requires a much more extensive test suite


>> The idea of the test suites is more oriented towards demonstrating that the specifications are implementable, and thus the test suites are required to cover all of the testable features in a spec.
> That's all correct and part of the demonstration of 'interoperable implementations" for each feature
>> This is why the diagram shows the WG producing specs and test suites.

   Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>

Received on Friday, 27 May 2016 20:34:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:03 UTC