- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 17:00:16 +1100
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, timeless <timeless@gmail.com>, Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Cc: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, W3C Device APIs WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
On March 2, 2016 at 10:50:24 PM, Chaals McCathie Nevile (chaals@yandex-team.ru) wrote: > Without multiple implementations, it is not certain that a spec meets > market needs in a way that ensures independent interoperable > implementation. Without people implementing it independently of the > Working group, it is hard to judge whether it is clear enough. Agree. > In both cases, arguments such as "blink is the common base for most of the > market", or "multiple independent development teams reviewed the code and > spec and believe they match" *may* convince the director. Or the group may > prefer to wait until there is more "hard evidence". If the above case arose (i.e., multiple browsers with "single browser DNA"), Mozilla, and possibly other browsers vendors, would object to the spec going to REC (or, at least, politely raise concerns to the Director as to why that might not be good for the Web). Kind regards, Marcos
Received on Monday, 14 March 2016 06:00:51 UTC