W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Process & Operational Guideline - Test materials home

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 08:54:56 +0100
Message-Id: <200201080754.g087svc28347@zidane.inria.fr>
To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

> The Framework: Process & Operational Guideline: Section Test 
> materials home contains the following Guideline:
> --GUIDELINE: Test Suites and tools should ultimately reside in W3C.
> I disagree with this statement.  Since we do recognized that external (to 
> W3C) organizations may be developing test suites and tools that the WG 
> wishes to leverage - it is unreasonable to assume that these external 
> organizations would give their products (to reside) to W3C.  By doing so, 
> takes the websurfer off their site, which may be how the get revenue, 
> recognition, impact, etc.   It is reasonable that the WG may wish to 
> recognize these tests and link to them.  I also disagree with Reason #2, - 
> although some test suites are developed by ad-hoc entities others are built 
> and supported by 'real' organizations that won't go away.  And, although 
> the people who built the tests may disappear (same as what happens in a W3C 
> WG), the organizations will still exist (e.g. NIST, Open Group, ETSI)
> I would rather capture the need for a WG to either have the test suite 
> reside in W3C or work with the external organization to ensure that the 
> test suite is available to everyone, maintained, etc.

The spirit of the checkpoint is to give the W3C WG in charge of the
technology control over the test suite development and evolution, both
from a correctness point of view and later on (when our framework is
implemented) from a process and operational/presentation point of

In theory, this could be achieved with the tool/web pages residing on
an external server, and good coordination going on between the
external group managing the bits and the W3C WG. 
In practice, depending on a lot of factors, this may be done more
easily if the bits are on w3.org, with the same repository access
available to everyone (e.g. cvs server, amaya editing).
But there may be cases where the persons maintaining the bits are less
W3C editing-aware and prefer to work on an external server, so we
should not make that checkpoint a MUST.

I agree that the important thing (the MUST) is that the bits are
available free of charge for use, but also free of charge for download
and potential derived/new evolution (this way if the external
organization fails to maintain the bits, W3C or someone else can
always take the ball from there).
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2002 02:54:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:29 UTC