W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2004

Re: [CSS21] response to issue 15b

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:07:48 +0100
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <40421333.611546407@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Ian Hickson wrote:
>The other part states that features that have not been adequately tested
>will be dropped. Are you seriously suggesting that you would want features
>that have not received adequate interoperability testing to remain in the
>specification? Isn't that violating the spirit of the process document
>(and the whole _point_ of a CR stage) much more than the given criteria?

The Process document requires to precisely identify features considered
at risk to ensure that the Proposed Recommendation does not invalidate
an individual's review or implementation experience of the Candidate
Recommendation. A technical report should not advance within the
Recommendation track without further work if the Working Group is not
able to demonstrate that each feature of the technical report has been
implemented.

The proposed exit criteria allow dropping features just for the sake of
advancement. I do not want to say that this is the intent of the
proposed exit criteria, my point is just that a Working Group should not
have a blank check to do so.

If implementors have simply not gotten around to implement a perfectly
fine section of the specification, the perfectly fine section should not
get dropped, the Working Group should rather wait with its request for
advancement; it may also request advancement without demonstrating
implementation experience.

The Working Group should encourage complete implementations of the
technical report, the proposed exit criteria however do not do so; it
does not seem unreasonable for implementors to expect that the Working
Group drops the features they do not implement and they would still
conform to the specification.

If it is forseeable that the exit criteria will not be met due to a
specific feature, it would also be reasonable to go back to Last Call
with the feature removed, demonstrate implementations and request
advancement of the technical report, without losing time or considerable
additional work. The difference is that reviewers would have a chance to
object to the removal of the feature, as they would have if the exit
criteria precisely identify features considered at risk, which is all I
have asked for.
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2004 14:07:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:26 GMT