W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [selectors-api] Transitioning to CR

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:12:24 +0200
Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <472FE0CA-769C-496C-BC18-5102C065D2A2@berjon.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
On Jun 19, 2009, at 16:57 , Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Robin Berjon wrote:
>>> * Test failures in a given implementation caused by the lack of  
>>> support
>>> for a particular feature of an independent specification are not
>>> counted.
>
> I should note that if we consider WebIDL an "independent  
> specification" then we're already there.

Yeah, I have this Ecmascript implementation that only supports  
variable declarations (with a few bugs). But I swear it supports the  
Selectors API!

Seriously though, as I explained during the last meeting it's up to  
the WG to reach consensus on the exit criteria, and then up to the WG  
to reach consensus on whether they've been reached or not. The point  
of specifying them in advance is that it informs the community at  
large about our intentions in terms of how strict we plan to be. Which  
is to say: it's not a conformance clause. We don't need to be anal  
about how it is formulated because we won't be writing tests in the  
future to see if the WG conforms to itself. It's important to say that  
we're testing the API and not actual CSS support, but we needn't go  
overboard in delimiting the criteria.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Friday, 19 June 2009 15:12:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT