- From: Andrew Thackrah <a.thackrah@opengroup.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 16:19:40 +0000
- To: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
On 2002.01.29 07:04 Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote: > Hi, Andrew! > Thanks for raising this, we discussed these 3 points on today's telecon, > outcome is inline (WG members, please check if I correctly summarized > this): > > > 1. > > Test material development. Do we have a global license for use and > > distribution of test materials. Or is it per-group? > [KG] We currently address this in the checkpoint 6.3 and 7.3: > > Checkpoint 6.3.Priority 2.In QA Process document, define the licenses > applicable to submitted and published test materials. > Note: Working Group can choose either the W3C Document or the W3C > Software license. If applicable, W3C Document license is recommended > > Checkpoint 7.3.Priority 1.If plan to transfer the test materials to W3C, > resolve IPR questions and reach agreement with external party that > produced test materials. > > We agreed to link 7.3 from the note for 6.3, as there might be other > licenses that the WG has to sort out with external party in case if the > test materials were developed outside of the W3C. OK. I wondered if the plan is for a standard license (or set of licenses) The wording at the moment suggest that licenses will be negotiated per case. Could this lead to accusations of bias? If we provide a license up front and say "this is what your contributions will be available under" then it could keep things simple from the start. > > > 2. > > Guideline 3. "...developed test materials can be used by external > > parties including certification services." We Need to explore the > > liability issues here. > > [KG] We ask WG to put the following disclaimer in Checkpoint 3.3: > Checkpoint 3.3.Priority 2.Provide disclaimer regarding use of the test > materials for compliance verification. > .... > 1. passing all of the tests does not guarantee full compliance of > implementation to specification > 2. failing test suite means failing tests for specific feature they > target > > In fact this disclaimer raised many discussions, specifically the part > 2. We decided to leave it as is for FPWD, in the mean time comments are > welcome on the list. > Argumentation for the current 2.: > - Existence: Disclaimer needs to be complete - if we give definition > of what does success mean, we need to give definition of what the > failure mean > - Wording: Objections were raised by Lynne and Dimitris that failing > test means non-conformance. But everybody agreed that the term > "non-conformance" is almost always conditional, leveled, etc. Apart of > this "conditional" nature, formula "failed - means non-conformant" > doesn't apply for tests for discretional behaviors - this was already > pointed out in the current OASIS XSLT committee work. > I have two cases in mind here: Case 1. Company A uses a W3C approved test suite to develop a product. They then release the product with the marketing claim "Conforms to spec X, W3C approved" Case 2. Company A sells it's product to company C. Company C finds a fault which costs them money. They blame company A. Company A discovers the fault is based on a test suite deficiency... Case 2 is perhaps easier to deal with using some kind of caveat emptor in the license. Case 1 is more about approval. Does the W3C approve products that pass their official test suite? If not - what is the status of accepted test materials? What do they represent? (currently I think the answer is yes for page validation) Are there any other cases? cheers, -Andrew
Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 11:20:48 UTC