Re: [widgets] Conformance Checker assertions spec

Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2009, at 18:36 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
>> For what it's worth, given that:
>> * P&C has been vastly rewritten
>> * test results collection hasn't started (AFAIK)
>> * you're suggesting to remove a bunch of conformance requirements which
>> could be assessed as a substantive change
>> I think it might be worth pushing P&C to a short Last Call period (3
>> weeks), asking to focus only on the changes since CR, and then when the
>> implementation reports are finalized, ask to go to PR directly.
>
> I like this plan. My primary concern is that we communicate it clearly
> to third parties.

Agreed. However, CR is a call for implementation - it is not a sign of 
complete stability. The significant changes I've been making have been 
mainly because of bugs Opera found during implementation and through 
verification through the test-case creation process. There were bugs. We 
fixed them.

> Also, do we have some visibility on which implementations (and how many)
> stand a chance of passing the TS?

I have not run it through Opera's internal imp yet. But don't foresee 
any issues passing.

If we can get Wookie to pass too, then we have the two implementations 
needed to proceed to PR.

It should not affect third parties too much if we time it perfectly: 
That is, republish LC once both implementations are passing every test 
in the test suite. Then, during the first week LC period we slap 
together the implementation report and have it ready to submit to the 
W3C for a speedy, yet process-proof, transition to PR.

Kind regards,
Marcos

Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 10:11:12 UTC