- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 15:04:21 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- cc: www-qa@w3.org
On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Lofton Henderson wrote: > So ... I'm sure that we could make a mess of things if we > implemented a 13-step program with bad choices all the way down > the path. The simple 13-step path is pessimistic, but is certainly not the worst-case scenario. I cannot predict future, I can only warn about dangerous tendencies and suggest alternatives. > What would you suggest that we do to avoid this? What *should* a > W3C QA activity focus on? I suggest to focus on practical side of things such as improvement of specs language and test suites. Stay away from any actions that may lead to legal or monetary (rather than technological) barriers such as enforcing "compliant with W3C specs" trademark rules. Leave certification to market-driven forces, if any. Provide good specs. Provide cool tools to test compliance. Let the market and government deal with those who abuse "W3C technology". Thanks, Alex.
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 17:04:22 UTC