W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2010

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2010-09-22

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:06:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4CA8C620.3090904@mit.edu>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 10/3/10 11:02 AM, fantasai wrote:
>    smfr: a "feature" is covered by a set of tests, maybe we
>          shouldn't require passes of all tests for a given feature

I just want to make sure I'm following here.

It seems that for a feature to stay in the spec, there need to be two 
implementations that both pass all the tests involving that feature, 
right?  I'm talking implementability testing, not interoperability 
testing.  Because for some CSS2.1 features (run-in, say, but plenty of 
others fall into this bucket too), it's quite doable to implement 
something that passes one subset or another of the tests; the 
implementation problems start when you combine all the requirements on 
UA behavior...

Is the suggestion above that we should use some other criterion for 
evaluating whether a feature has two interoperable implementations?

Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 18:13:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:39 UTC