- From: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:27:31 +0100
- To: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>, timeless <timeless@gmail.com>, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Cc: "Mounir Lamouri" <mounir@lamouri.fr>, "W3C Device APIs WG" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, "Frederick Hirsch" <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 07:00:16 +0100, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote: > 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). In such a case, I would hope the concern was already blindingly obvious to the Director. The scenario in which I can imagine the Director determining that something with only one browser implementation was good enough for a Recommendation would be where there was a significant uptake in content, *and* not too much "but it breaks…" feedback from content developers, and probably other factors - I see those things as necessary, but not necessarily sufficient. cheers -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2016 15:28:06 UTC