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

Re: Feature Rings, Incomplete Rings, and Compliance Grading

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 22:02:18 +0000
To: Jet Villegas <jet@mozilla.com>
CC: "robin@berjon.com" <robin@berjon.com>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>, "jason@cloudfour.com" <jason@cloudfour.com>, jeanfrancois moy <jeanfrancois.moy@orange.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Message-ID: <CBC8A545.80F33%tobie@fb.com>
On 5/3/12 8:14 PM, "Jet Villegas" <jet@mozilla.com> wrote:

>Apologies if this e-mail shows up multiple times--the coremob mailing
>list seems to be flagging my earlier posts:

No problem and sorry about the mailing list bizarreness you encountered.

>I would prefer that the rings represent features like ring 0 == text,
>ring 1 == images, ring 2 == JavaScript, ring 3 == audio, ring 4 ==
>video...

I'm not sure how that would add value over the specs by themselves nor how
that encourages a platform view, which is what the group is after.

>I don't think that failing an inner ring should halt testing on outer
>rings. The web developer should be able to see the level of compatibility
>across several rings at once. For example, if a developer is trying to
>build an app that needs a ring 997 feature (let's say 'teleportation')
>they should be able to see if that works even if the browser has a bug
>with vertical Hiragana text in ring 42.

That makes sense with the vertical split you're suggesting above. Less so
with the more horizontal approach we're taking. We're still at a point
where we're busy fighting fragmentation and trying to move the lowest
common denominator up.

--tobie
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 22:03:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 19 April 2013 17:36:46 UTC