- From: <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:57:36 +0200
- To: <robin@robineko.com>
- Cc: <jmcf@tid.es>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>, <marcosc@opera.com>
> On Aug 6, 2009, at 17:16 , <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote: > > My previous email crossed with yours, Robin :( > > Such is the internet! > > > So now I understand the process I would still suggest that > the specs > > minus JS applies to all drafts too. > > You mean Editor's Drafts too? I think that would encourage > people to not commit as often as they should, which is IMHO a > bad idea. The ED drafts are mostly to help the WG work and > communicate with its community. Whenever there's a big > difference between the ED and the latest published WD a new > publication should be made in order to reach a wider audience > (you know, publish early, publish often ;). > OK. Early and often is good and I agree automated snapshots will be difficult initially. Perhaps then ReSpec.js could check the browser environment on initialisation. If it fails whatever we need (e.g. it's not a supported/tested browser or e.g., Javascript is currently disabled) then it would leave a big red div at the top of the page stating that 'this page is not rendering correctly...' and possibly why e.g. 'you're using IE6 and we only support these browser + versions...' or 'you must enable javascript'. Could be useful. Obviously, any snapshots generated and this info gets removed (assuming the snapshots are created from a suitable browser). I'm happy to add and play about with this in the ReSpec.js if it's of interest.
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 15:58:26 UTC