- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:14:32 -0600
- To: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>, "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>, <David_Marston@lotus.com>, <www-qa@w3.org>
P.S. to my last: I understand that the Process Document allows for a quick track for minor republications that do not significantly change functionality (e.g., XML 1.0 Second Edition). But this is still too ponderous, and in any case it would be undesirable to have frequent turn-overs of the REC document. The ISO process can work on a per-erratum granularity (or, a number of errata can be batched together and processed at once, for efficiency). A defect report is typically a single-page document, in a rigid pro-forma. -Lofton. At 09:53 AM 10/19/01 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote: >At 10:03 AM 10/19/01 -0400, Mark Skall wrote: >>[...] >>So the only confusion comes when something is ambiguous. In that case, I >>would agree that the standards body (in this case W3C) should make the >>interpretation. However, the tester should not test for something that >>is not clear in the standard. The standard needs to be revised to >>reflect the intent. Only after this occurs, can a test suite test for >>that requirement. Until then, the test for that requirement should be >>withdrawn. Standards developers must stand behind the wording in the standard. > >I agree. However, the length of W3C document cycle, by which corrections >and clarifications actually get published, creates another problem. Some >key point of a spec is ambiguous, so at best, implementors develop a >formal consensus of "the right way", and at worst, they implement >different interpretations. In the latter case, a legacy of problems >becomes instantiated in products (and then ... see earlier "bugwards >compatibility" thread). > >This suggests the utility of a "normative errata" mechanism. ISO has a >formal "defects" process, for example. Defect corrections go through a >formal review and resolution process, which is typically much shorter than >document-release cycles. Once published, a Defect Resolution is >considered to be part of the standard. > >-Lofton. >
Received on Friday, 19 October 2001 12:12:48 UTC