[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
At 22:16 17/10/2000, Jonathan.Robie@S... wrote: >James Robertson wrote: > > > At 08:24 17/10/2000, Jonathan.Robie@S... wrote: > > >> In fact, Tim B-L strongly prefers to have two interoperable > >> implementations. It keeps the IETF people from snickering if something > >> goes wrong. The problem has to do with proving interoperability. > >> I think it would be healthy to see this as a formal requirement. > > > I'm glad to here that _he_ "prefers" two > > interoperable implementations. > > > > He decided not to require this in the > > case of, say, XSL:FO? > >It is on a case-by-case basis, as I understand it. And there are no formal >test suites in most groups. Isn't this something that should be fixed? My personal opinion is that a standard should not be released in final form until: * Two independent implementations exist. * A formal test suite has been developed. This should be made an absolute requirement for _all_ candidate standards. Further, to a previous poster's suggestion: how about the W3C develop a tightly-controlled "W3C compliance certificate" that would be awarded to implementations that pass the test suites? Like, for example, Java certification, Windows certification, MacOS certification, etc, etc ... J ------------------------- James Robertson Step Two Designs Pty Ltd SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution http://www.steptwo.com.au/ jamesr@s...
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|