W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Ringmark is now open source

From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:31:42 +0200 (CEST)
To: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
cc: Thaddee Tyl <thaddee.tyl@gmail.com>, "lbolstad@opera.com" <lbolstad@opera.com>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1204131912110.24600@sirius>

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Tobie Langel wrote:

> On 4/13/12 6:17 PM, "Thaddee Tyl" <thaddee.tyl@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/13/12 3:50 PM, "Lars Erik Bolstad" <lbolstad@opera.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12.04.2012 16:27, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>>>> Based on your experience and point of view, what parts of the current
>>>>> R0 document would you:
>>>>>      - remove;
>>>> Remove all -webkit-* CSS properties, please.
>>> Are we talking about the same document[1], here?
>>> [1]: http://coremob.github.com/level-0/index.html
>> Considering that the name of the thread is "Ringmark is now
>> open-source", Lars' comment seems relevant to me.
> That's doubtful. Lars is answering the question: "what parts of the
> current R0 document would you remove?"

FWIW I expect the confusion here arises from the fact that ringmark tests 
things that are only to be implemented prefixed (per e.g. CSS WG 
guidelines), and considers an implementation with a prefix to be a pass. I 
think this is a very problematic approach; prefixes are bad for the long 
term health of the web and at best should get partial credit; we should be 
putting pressure on the CSS WG to unprefix things that we think are needed 
today rather than promoting the user-hostile, developer-hostile status-quo 
of long-lived fragmentation.

The Ring 0 document also curently calls for implementations of a number of 
things that are aiui still quite unstable e.g. flexbox. Could we loop in 
someone from the CSSWG to see which of the listed specs are considered 
mostly stable?

Some more comments:

"Implementors should pay special attention to" seems silly. We should just 
link to the testsuite. In general I don't like subsetting specs that 
aren't using the living standard model of HTML5.

I don't see any reason not to require ES5.1 support. Or rather I don't see 
any reason to prefer partial ES5.1 support over full support.

I also note that there is a MUST level requirement that is implicitly 
reduced to a SHOULD by the following text, and is untestable (about tel:, 
mms:, etc. URI shcemes).
Received on Friday, 13 April 2012 17:36:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:45 UTC