- From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:04:03 -0800
- To: <andrew@opengroup.org>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
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. > 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. > > regards, > Andrew
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 02:04:36 UTC