- From: Arnold, Curt <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:25:00 -0600
- To: "'www-dom-ts@w3.org'" <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
>> Should each test >> have a "Copyright (c) 2001, MIT..." boilerplate? > > Yes, they should. I thought so. We should provide a standard formulation. Hopefully, it would be sufficient to place something like: <!-- Copyright (c) 2001, whoever. This document is made available under the W3C Document Notice http://www.w3.org/... --> instead of having to include the full text of the document notice in every test. A transform could be provided that inserts the appropriate boilerplate when the proper formulation is decided (but before the submission process is started) > No. The tests will be endorsed by the W3C and therefore, you > won't be allowed > to modify them and still claim conformance with the test > suites. NIST and W3C > agreed that the W3C Document Notice and License is the > appropriate one. Note > that I said the tests, not the framework used to produce them. The > user/developer must be able to download the tests from the > W3C web site > http://www.w3.org/DOM/Test and check his implementation for > DOM conformance. I understand the need to keep the official tests clean, but I see an conflict between the expected use of the tests and the "No right to create modifications or derivatives of W3C documents is granted pursuant to this license." I could see the following scenarios that seem like a legitimate use of the tests but progressively get closer to conflicting with the prohibition on derivative works. 1. Test interpreter A third party provides a test interpreter that executes the tests by reading the official W3C test archive and invoking methods in the implementation through Java reflection, IDispatch or similar mechanism. This seems like the cleanest use of the tests, but most difficult to implement, especially on platforms where there is no built-in support for reflection. 2. Test compiler A third party provides a process that converts the official W3C test archive into equivalent source code for the combination of language, test framework and processor being used. Running the test would require the test definitions, some coordinator (like Ant or Make), a compiler (like javac), in addition to the test framework. The provider of this tool would not be infringing on the derivative work clause but would be assisting the person running the tool to infringe since the process would create Java, C++ or other source code that is derived from the W3C document. 3. Compiled tests A third party processes the official W3C test archive to create equivalent source code, compiles and produces a component (.jar, executable, web site) that will test a particular processor. Running the test would not require the test definitions, a coordinator or a compiler. In this scenario, there would appear to be a potential conflict with the derivatives clause since the component contains compiled code that was generated from the tests. In all three scenarios, the provider of the interpreter or translator could corrupt the results of the tests by partially or incorrectly interpreting the test definitions. 4. A test author wants to use a W3C DOM test as the basis for a new test For example, I have quite a few tests for DOM Events that are deriviatives of the NIST DOM 1 tests. Basically, I've taken tests in the NIST DOM 1 suite that made mutations to the DOM, added event listeners and checked that the events that I personally expected occurred. The tests are not trying to masquerade as the original test or imply any endorsement from NIST, but they are clearly derivative works. The Software Notice would allow this type of use (and prohibit passing off the derivative as the original) but this would seem to be a clear violation of the Document Notice. 5. A framework author wants to use a transform that produces Java code from the test definitions as the base for a transform that produces code for some other language. If the transform was under the Document notice, this would seem to be a violation but would be acceptible under the Software notice. > There is a Bugzilla > system in the W3C > but we're still testing it so it is not ready yet. If you are already working on Bugzilla, then it would probably be best to keep the resources focused and get it usable for this project instead of bring another piece of software into the mix.
Received on Friday, 8 June 2001 14:36:58 UTC