On 19/4/09 10:30, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Larry Masinter wrote: >> Problem (from Chris Wilson): "the general problem with how we define >> HTML today; if HTML5 becomes a Rec and we realize we did something >> poorly we will cause rampant compatibility problems if we change >> implementations. There are a whole bunch of versioning mechanism that >> will address that but also cause their own problems." > > Isn't this the problem the Candidate Recommendation stage is supposed to > address? Having serious CR phases, where we aim for two complete > implementations of the entire specification (including all optional parts, > and with no bugs, and with a comprehensive test suite written with the > intent of finding every last edge case bug) seems like it would avoid the > problem of doing things poorly, or at least reduce the likelihood to the > point where it would be rare enough to not be enough to justify adding > syntax-level support for routing around such problems later. This would be nice. Can you suggest any inspirational precedents for a comparably-complex technology? Dan -- http://danbri.org/Received on Sunday, 19 April 2009 08:35:48 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 19 April 2009 08:35:49 GMT