Re: Discussion of "incompatibilities" at the F2F

Hi John,

Given that the PR transition criteria include the demonstration of at 
least two interoperable implementations of the specification, it is 
important that we spend some time at the f2f discussing implementation 
issues, also with the goal of producing/collecting test cases.

I am not aware of any substantial discussions that haven taken place 
between browser makes that should have taken place on this mailing list.
Given that you imply a "historical pattern", do you have any specific 
issues in mind where this has been a problem in the past?

Thanks,
Lars Erik

John Morris wrote:
> All,
>
> It appears from the F2F agenda that we will be spending 2.5 hours on 
> "Current incompatibilities between implementations."  The fact that 
> this is on the agenda for a substantial length of time certainly implies:
>
> 1) that there are such incompatibilities, and
> 2) that the browser makers have had at least some discussions of these 
> incompatibilities (or else it would not have ended up on the agenda)
>
> There has, however, been no hint or mention of incompatibilities on 
> the W3C mailing list.  This is consistent with the historical pattern 
> in this WG, where most substantive discussions happen somewhere else 
> other than on the WG list.
>
> As a courtesy to WG members who are attending the F2F, it would be 
> helpful if someone could summarize for the list the incompatibilities 
> that we will be discussing.  More generally, if there are other facts, 
> developments, or discussions about other topics that will be discussed 
> at the F2F that have not previously been mentioned or discussed on the 
> list, it would be appropriate to share that information with the list 
> before the F2F.
>
> Thanks, John
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 12:07:32 UTC