Kyle Lussier wrote:
[..]
> As I've mentioned, I absolutely, positively do not want
> conformance testing, of any kind!
[..]
> What I am fundamentally looking for here is a procedure by which
> there is a control mechanism for defining a vendor trying to
> be interoperable (which is a huge consumer, customer, and vendor
> benefit) vs. a vendor that is using taking standards and abusing
> them in the marketplace.
Interoperable with what?
Interoperability testing occurs between implementations, and doesn't
require reference to a document or specification. Conformance testing
is, essentially, interoperability testing against an implementation
that has previously been declared standards-compliant - the reference
implementation.
Your process for yanking a logo requires a vendor's implementation to
fail an interoperability test against a known standards compliant
implementation. Anything less would make the logo meaningless. That
smells dangeoursly like conformance testing. And that's why you're
getting such push-back.
cheers,
gja
