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
