RE: [courtfiling-cert] Court Filing 1.1 vendor compliance proposal

I suggest that
the input from the Certification Subcommittee should be what you have said
(with which I fully agree), PLUS a comment indicating that, if the Technical
Committee chooses to establish a report-back requirement for vendors who want
to associate their implementations with Court Filing specifications, the terms "certified"
or "certification" or close synonyms (such as "approved"
or "compliant" or "accepted") should be avoided. 

 

Regards,

 

Roger Winters

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: 
[mailto:] 

Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 11:57
AM

To:


Subject: [courtfiling-cert] Court
Filing 1.1 vendor compliance proposal

 

Subcommittee members,

 

The TC is proposing that vendors may claim to have implemented
the Court Filing 1.1 standard if they report to the TC how they implemented the
standard and permit the TC to post comments in reaction.  The TC will not
officially approve or disapprove the claim, based on arguments of technical
correctness, since the 1.1 standard is too vague and incomplete to enforce that
approach.

 

Given the proposal of this subcommittee for certification,
that stance is appropriate,.  Nothing short of an open source reference
implementation and a formal test suite is sufficient to claim formal
compliance, if the philosophy of our proposed certification requirements is
adopted.  That position implies a non-ambiguous and functionally complete
(or formally segmented) set of standards that enables the test suite to produce
a clear yes-or-no result.

 

John Greacen has asked for our feedback on this issue prior
to the TC conference call next Tuesday.  Please respond before then if
possible and I will try to fairly summarize the comments for the TC. 
Thanks.

 

Tom Clarke