- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:12:44 +0900
- To: www-qa@w3.org
- Cc: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, "Snorre M. Grimsby" <snorre@opera.com>, Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>, "Lynne S. Rosenthal" <lsr@email.nist.gov>, "Mark W. Skall" <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Hi Lofton, Snorre, Lynne, Mark, Patrick,
(and others)
I would like to have your opinions about Implementation Reports.
Short reminder:
During the CR phase[2], usually it is requested from WGs to prove
that their language has been implemented /at least/ twice. Rules can
be made stricter by the WG itself. Often WGs produce an
implementation report to have a global view of implementations
landscape. The QA Matrix[3] lists W3C implementation reports[1] and
shows their diversity in terms of layouts and information.
Questions:
- What should contain an implementation report?
- What shoud NOT contain an implementation report?
- Do you think a common format is desirable?
- Do you have success or bad stories when creating an
implementation report?
Reference:
[1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/ImplementationReport
[2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#cfi
[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/TheMatrix
Thanks
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 03:12:52 UTC