- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:39:44 -0500
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
On Matt May's ***personal*** weblog http://www.bestkungfu.com/archive/?id=335 The last two paragraphs of the entry is interesting. """ Farouk addresses the second question by submitting the Java Community Process, which requires conformance testing in order for specs to move forward. Philippe agrees, citing the W3C Candidate Recommendation process, where two implementations of each part of the specification must be found. Additionally, CR requires a test suite to ensure interop and conformance. Jamie says that OASIS requires groups to certify that they conform to a standard, but they don't require evidence of that conformance. "Frankly, it extends the process quite a bit." Michael interjects: "Conformance tests cannot prove conformance, because tests cannot prove correctness." You can only scientifically disprove something. (This is why I don't get into arguments with logicians.) Eve Maler of Sun: "Once a specification starts to show some traction," it's important to have test suites, etc., but before then, it's a lot of work to impose on a group. Conformance clauses and testable assertions are sufficient before then. Mark Palmer adds that two interoperable implementations is the minimum, and OASIS's approach of implementability is insufficient. Jamie says that at the final stage, they actually require three implementations, but still don't require interop. WS-Security had "several big" interoperability tests, but it isn't documented in the process. Janet Daly, head of communications for W3C, notes that a publicly-viewable implementation report is required to exit Candidate Recommendation. Also, comments on the spec must have some disposition in public. """ -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Saturday, 13 December 2003 17:49:59 UTC