- From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 04:09:23 -0700
- To: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>, Gary Katsevman <me@gkatsev.com>
- Cc: Cyril Concolato <cconcolato@netflix.com>, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
On 6/12/2019 10:43 PM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux wrote: > Hi Gary et al., > > In recent publications the group has gone to great lengths to make > sure that at least two implementations passed each test, whether for > exotic or trivial features. >> Why would it be different here? Have the criteria changed? Should > future versions of TTML and WebVTT have to meet a lower threshold of > "proof-of-concept"? > > I think the group needs to be consistent, one way or another. I thought the exit criteria was 2 implementations of each feature. There is a difference between tests and features. However, I'm not suggesting that the difference matters in this particular test, given that the spec is clear on this particular test. If the value balance isn't supported today, what are the implementations doing instead of balance? Chromium doesn't seem to have a bug report on balance for example. Should we ask the CSS Working Group on the status and stability of balance? (Gary, I'm happy to go on fact findings if you'd like) Philippe
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2019 11:09:32 UTC