W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2012

Re: [css3-mediaqueries] implementation report

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:29:20 +0100
Message-ID: <946462435.20120307202920@w3.org>
To: John Jansen <John.Jansen@microsoft.com>
CC: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wednesday, March 7, 2012, 7:56:24 PM, John wrote:

JJ> Before bringing this IR to the AC for REC consideration, I'd like
JJ> to clarify that the version of Opera that passes all of the tests
JJ> would not be considered experimental. Since Opera 11.61 with
JJ> Presto 2.10.299 fails 105 tests in this suite, and since that is
JJ> the stable version, I'm worried that the current pass rate will
JJ> not qualify as an implementation (remember that during CSS2.1 IR
JJ> gathering, we were very careful that the implementations were
JJ> stable and not just trying to get a "pass"; with 105 failures
JJ> moving to 0, I think the risk of regression is high and I fear
JJ> some of the fixes will be backed out before 12 is stable).

The specific language in the CR exit criteria for media queries is:

"is shipped, or is a "nightly build" (i.e., a development version for the next release), but is not experimental (i.e., a version specifically designed to pass the test suite and not intended for daily usage going forward). "
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/#status

The referenced Opera webpage states that this build is "New Opera Next snapshot that brings Presto all the way up to version 2.10.269.".
http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2012/02/28/precision-engine

To me, this implies that it is "a development version for the next release" and not "a version specifically designed to pass the test suite".

Note that the criteria for CSS 2.1, a specification which was designed to be a wrap-up of existing implementations, were different and more stringent:

"is shipping (i.e., development, private or unofficial versions are insufficient).
is not experimental (i.e., is intended for a wide audience and could be used on a daily basis)."
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-CSS2-20090908/#crec

So to answer the specific question posed by Jack, this Opera.next build would not have met the criteria for CSS 2.1 (because development builds were specifically excluded) but does meet the criteria for CSS3 modules (because development builds are specifically included, as long as they are not special trick builds).

JJ> Internet Explorer is going to submit our IR in the next few days,
JJ> but we do have a few failures still. It looks to me like there
JJ> will be 10 test cases that only 1 implementation passes if the
JJ> Opera IR is determined to be from an experimental implementation. 

I'm glad to see that we will have results for IE9/IE10 and that you only have 10 failures.

Any chance those 10 could be reduced to 0 before IE10 ships?

JJ> -John

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Florian Rivoal [mailto:florianr@opera.com]
>> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 1:14 AM
>> To: www-style@w3.org
>> Subject: [css3-mediaqueries] implementation report

>> Hi,

>> I am happy to announce that Opera has now released a public build[1] that
>> passes all the tests in the Media Queries level 3 test suite[2].

>> You can see the results in the implementation report[3].

>>   - Florian


>> [1] http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2012/02/28/precision-engine
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/MediaQueries/20120229/
>> [3]
>> http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/MediaQueries/20120229/reports/imple
>> ment-report.html






-- 
 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 19:32:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:48:51 GMT