W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking-comments@w3.org > August 2015

RE: Progression of TPE to CR

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:27:10 +0000
To: "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com>
CC: Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com>, "public-tracking-comments@w3.org" <public-tracking-comments@w3.org>, team-tracking-chairs <team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Message-ID: <BY2PR03MB60848CD42E645C2CB514801D37D0@BY2PR03MB608.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
On Thursday, August 13, 2015 3:11 AM, Rob van Eijk wrote:
>>> Based on conversation with editors, we believe these typical CR exit
>>> criteria should apply to the TPE Candidate Recommendation that we
>>> expect to publish after a Director decision:
>>> * Multiple (at least two), interoperable implementations of each
>>> feature, excepting features marked at risk
>If the requirement >= 2 is not a normative W3C requirement, I would 
>rather suggest that >=1 implementation would suffice to keep the fetaure 
>at risk in the recommendation. The main reason for this perspective is 
>that implementation may be broader if all implemented edge-cases are 
>taken into account, even if there is only one such a case.

You can't prove interoperability with one implementation. There must be at
least two. Some groups require more than two to progress depending upon
complexity and risk of adoption. The point is to show that different groups
can read the spec and arrive at interoperable implementations.

Received on Thursday, 13 August 2015 19:27:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 13 August 2015 19:27:44 UTC