- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:16:10 +0100
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:08:31 +0100, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 11/26/09 11:52 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> And I don't see any problem with using public development builds. > > The main problem I have with them is that they have typically not gone > through the sort of full QA cycle that would point out possible problems > in the implementation of the "bad interaction with other specs or > deployed content" kind. One would hope that such issues were caught > during spec writing, but I think this is an important sanity-check. > > Of course in this view not all implementations are equal (e.g. a > walled-garden implementation wouldn't have the same compatibility > constraints as web-facing one)... Not sure that others see this > requirement in the same light as I do. The CSS WG relatively recently dropped this requirement. Developer builds are now sufficient. I was not really in favor, but most of the group was. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 26 November 2009 21:16:55 UTC