- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:47:47 -0400
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On Monday, 26 August 2013 at 04:52, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: > Hi Art, > > Le vendredi 23 août 2013 à 07:48 -0400, Arthur Barstow a écrit : > > just wondering if the group considered using WebIDL's > > "conforming IDL fragment" conformance class instead (as it could reduce > > the testing and implementation requirements to exit CR). > > > > While I think this might be OK for specs that were implemented before > WebIDL was so well-defined (e.g. Web Storage and Geolocation), I feel > this would be stretching it to apply it to specs that are being > implemented now (or otherwise, we might just as well drop all the > semantics of WebIDL :) > Agree - it would be bad to exclusively conform to the fragment requirement (though specs should be at least validated through Robin's WebIDL validator also). -- Marcos Caceres
Received on Monday, 26 August 2013 17:48:14 UTC