W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:17:15 -0800
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-id: <7093DF9A-2AE1-43AD-940D-DAEDED06370A@apple.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>

On Nov 18, 2009, at 3:49 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> this is a Call for consensus to request publishing the Selectors API  
> draft at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors- 
> api/Overview.html?rev=1.101&content-type=text/html; 
> %20charset=iso-8859-1 as a Candidate Recommendation (assuming Lachy  
> fixes the apparent encoding errors, the incorrect URIs and so on as  
> editorial corrections).

I support this publication.


>
> The proposed exit criteria are in a separate thread, but essentially  
> are:
>
> For a set of tests based on HTML, CSS 2.1 selectors and this spec,  
> there are two implementations that pass every test interoperably,  
> and do not fail any "additional" tests based on misimplementing this  
> specification (i.e. failures based on not supporting a technology  
> used only in the additional tests, such as MathML, will not be taken  
> into account).

Request for clarification. Does this require:

A) There must be two implementations, each of which passes every test  
(i.e. the same two implementations pass all the tests); or
B) For each test, there are two implementations that pass it (but not  
necessarily the same two for every test).

It reads like (A), but I have seen similar wording interpreted as (B)  
in the context of other specs. My preference is (A). Either way, I'd  
suggest that the actual exit criteria should be worded carefully to  
make clear which is intended.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2009 20:17:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:35 GMT