Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Acid Tests

[Shawn <sgrover@open2space.com>]

jose lorenzo wrote:
> To return to your point 4, I suppose third parties or
> the users/buyers themselves (or someone on their
> behalf) would set requirements like " 'officially'
> failed tests must be passed within 60 days or else X."

I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly.  Are you suggesting 
that a vendor submits their product to conformance testing, and if it 
fails they have a deadline of 60 days before a repercussion of some sort 
is initiated?

If this interpretation is correct, then I need to say I do not agree 
with this approach at all.  For a few reasons:

- why would a vendor voluntarily submit to this sort of testing?  What 
is in it for them?  A rubber stamp?  But ONLY if they do not fail?  I 
would think the potential for failure of some sort would be much higher 
than the potential for 100% pass.
- What is the repercussion?  Publication of the failure(s)?  I'm not 
sure that would make any difference to vendors.  After all, show me a 
web browser that is 100% compatible with ALL the standards involved. 
Yet we still have a vibrant browser market.  Maybe a fine is in order 
then?  But who will enforce that?  Why would the vendor not just turn up 
their nose at such a fine?
- Above all, this adds layers of administrative over head.  Not only is 
that a waste of resources, but it also adds politics and other methods 
to abuse the system.

My thoughts are that we keep testing simple enough that the public can 
run their own test and see the results. (or view testing results in a 
transparent manner - i.e. all testing code is available for inspection) 
  And then let THEM decide to use that product or not.  This will put 
the control back into the hands of the consumers and then market forces 
occur naturally without any administrative overhead.

All the discussions I've seen on the Acid tests so far seem to favor 
this approach.

But, perhaps I read the statement wrong.  My apologies if that's the case.

Shawn