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
