- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 09:21:56 +0900
- To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Le 7 avr. 2007 à 06:06, David Hyatt a écrit :
> The HTML WG should just endorse it largely as is. since three
> nearly interoperable implementations have already shipped.
Not my role to answer this, but I'm interested with my QA role hat
about certain things in this thread. Usually small things are easier
to move, and in a more agile method, it is more satisfying when a
small object can be quickly specified.
So just as a thought experiment with QA in mind.
Would it be easier for Canvas to be indeed an independent
specification in terms of
* writing it
* developing test cases for it
* having more than 2 interoperable implementations of it with a full
W3C hosted test suite for it.
I'm pretty sure that at least Safari, Mozilla and Apple have such
test suites for their own development. So it would be more a matter
of donating the test suite and putting cements where test cases are
missing, using the big community here.
And last but not least, do you think all of that could be done in 6
months.
* first WD in 4 weeks
* Then CR in 8 weeks.
After a first WD publication, *entrance* criteria for CR are defined
like this:
Candidate Recommendation (CR)
A Candidate Recommendation is a document that W3C
believes has been widely reviewed and satisfies the
Working Group's technical requirements. W3C publishes a
Candidate Recommendation to gather implementation
experience.
-- 7 W3C Technical Report Development Process
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#RecsCR
Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:31:14 GMT
And in Call for Implementations:
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Monday, 9 April 2007 00:23:35 UTC