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

RE: Progression of TPE to CR

From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 01:21:10 +0100
To: "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, "'Adrian Bateman'" <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Cc: <rob@blaeu.com>, "'Carl Cargill'" <cargill@adobe.com>, <public-tracking-comments@w3.org>, "'team-tracking-chairs'" <team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>, "'John Simpson'" <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Message-ID: <19e701d0d627$1fecddf0$5fc699d0$@baycloud.com>
Microsoft have the API working in Edge as well as IE, so does that count as 2? Presumably they are very different code bases.

You can try it on aquafresh.co.uk, just click the bottom right gate icon to opt-in/out, then use web console to see DNT flip over. It also flips in a different CSP for belt-and-braces.

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
Sent: 13 August 2015 20:45
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Cc: rob@blaeu.com; Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com>; public-tracking-comments@w3.org; team-tracking-chairs <team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>; John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Subject: Re: Progression of TPE to CR


> On Aug 13, 2015, at 12:27 , Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Adrian.

well, if (for example) Microsoft’s implementation of a given feature works with a multitude of sites, then you have proven interoperability to some extent.  However, we desire that those same sites also work with at least one other independent implementation, so we have consistent interoperability, i.e. some evidence that implementers at both ends read the spec. consistently.

(The same issue might arise if only one site uses the feature, of course).

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 14 August 2015 00:21:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 14 August 2015 00:21:44 UTC