The change proposed below is to move what CR#1 calls Conformance
Checker Behavior (CCB) requirements to a new spec [P&C-CC]. This
proposed change has already been made in the P&C Test Suite Edition
[TSE] and [TSE] is the Editor's Draft that will be used as the basis
of the next publication of the P&C spec.
In addition to the CCB change, the TSE also includes a change to the
spec's scope. In particular, whereas CR#1's scope includes four
"classes of products" (UA, widget package, configuration document and
conformance), the TSE only addresses the UA class (at least that is
the intent based Marcos expressed in [MC] but that is not yet
reflected in the TSE spec itself).
This CfC is: to accept the changes proposed below including the
related classes of products and scope changes as reflected in the TSE.
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and
encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for
comments is October 14.
-Regards, Art Barstow
[CR#1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-widgets-20090723/
[TSE] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.html
[P&C-CC] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html
[MC] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/
0079.html
Begin forwarded message:
From: ext Marcos Caceres <[email protected]>
Date: September 29, 2009 10:56:00 AM EDT
To: public-webapps <[email protected]>
Subject: [widgets] Conformance Checker assertions spec
Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/
[email protected]>
Given that the test suite event did not bother to create tests for
conformance checker (CC) related assertions, I have moved all
conformance checker assertions from the P&C Test Suite edition to a
new document [1].
Rationale for the move:
Firstly, the CC assertions are poorly specified - they don't actually
say why a CC needs to do something.
Secondly, the CC assertions as they currently appear are hard to test
(far too many SHOULDs and MAYs) and some are not precise enough.
Thirdly, we don't have anyone committing to implement the assertions,
which potentially delays the progression of this specification to Rec.
Moving the CC assertions to their own spec allows them to, obviously,
be standardized independently.
The CC assertions are important and deserve their own specification -
they also need to be done properly, with collaboration of
implementers.
I again ask the working group to endorse this move as we move P&C
to PR.
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
