W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > September 2013

resolving ISSUE-38 - document known implementations

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:11:02 +0500
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.w3mqooh0y3oazb@chaals.local>
I added the statement saying that known implementations *should* be  
documented as a general requirement for transitions. It doesn't require  
searching for all implementations.

Given a public spec that is useful, and an implementing public that is  
busy and sometimes quite secretive, the argument that a Working Group  
*knows* all the implementers seems to me somewhere between naive and  
stupidly arrogant.

It also doesn't tell the group how to decide what is or isn't an  
implementation - but then, it also allows them to say "X is believed to b  
working on an implementation" which is useful implementation (if true).

This isn't perfect, it is just information that is helpful to the WG,  
those watching the WG. Which is why it is only a should.



Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2013 23:11:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:09 UTC