[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Acid Tests
Shawn wrote: > 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? Shawn, mm, the way I read it, Jose states that a _buyer_ could mandate that a product must pass the "official" test, or fix the product within 60 days. That of course, is up to the customer... > - What is the repercussion? Publication of the failure(s)? Failures (and successes) should be published immediately, there's no point in holding back the results (except maybe if the tests expose a critical security bug) > 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? I don't think any standards organization has the legal power to fine implementors whose products fail to pass a test, otherwise W3C et al. would be very rich indeed :-) > 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. Agreed. Best regards, Bart H
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]