W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Exit criteria in the wake of 3 engines

From: Reece Dunn <msclrhd@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:46:14 +0000
Message-ID: <CAGdtn27vAVwQjsy0+45z1bZbNnD_jDvtwHV=ZdGwRXVEfeLyTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Irish <paul.irish@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

Who said that an implementor of the spec has to be a web browser engine?

There are other applications that implement CSS such as document printers
(like Prince [www.princexml.com]) and ebook readers/viewers.

For one, my ebook reader (Cainteoir Text-to-Speech [
www.reecedunn.co.uk/cainteoir]) will be implementing the CSS3 Counter
Styles specification, and possibly other specifications as well such as the
CSS3 Syntax module.

- Reece

On 6 March 2013 09:11, Paul Irish <paul.irish@gmail.com> wrote:

> In exit criteria for many of the specs we see text like: "each
> implementation must be developed by a different party and cannot share,
> reuse, or derive from code used by another qualifying implementation"
> With Opera adopting Chromium, this criterium appears to have gotten
> significantly more challenging to satisfy.
> There were 6 two-implementation possibilities with Presto and without,
> that number is reduced to 3.
> Is revisiting the exit criteria worthwhile now that it seems far more
> difficult to move a spec to Rec?
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2013 10:46:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:09 UTC