xml-dev - RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?

[James Robertson <jamesr@steptwo.com.au>]

At 22:16 17/10/2000, Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com wrote:

>James Robertson wrote:
>
> > At 08:24 17/10/2000, Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com 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@steptwo.com.au