Re: Canvas

Le 7 avr. 2007 à 06:06, David Hyatt a écrit :
> The HTML WG should just endorse it largely as is. since three  
> nearly interoperable implementations have already shipped.

Not my role to answer this, but I'm interested with my QA role hat  
about certain things in this thread. Usually small things are easier  
to move, and in a more agile method, it is more satisfying when a  
small object can be quickly specified.

So just as a thought experiment with QA in mind.

Would it be easier for Canvas to be indeed an independent  
specification in terms of

* writing it
* developing test cases for it
* having more than 2 interoperable implementations of it with a full  
W3C hosted test suite for it.

I'm pretty sure that at least Safari, Mozilla and Apple have such  
test suites for their own development. So it would be more a matter  
of donating the test suite and putting cements where test cases are  
missing, using the big community here.

And last but not least, do you think all of that could be done in 6  

* first WD in 4 weeks
* Then CR in 8 weeks.

After a first WD publication, *entrance* criteria for CR are defined  
like this:

         Candidate Recommendation (CR)
         A Candidate Recommendation is a document that W3C
         believes has been widely reviewed and satisfies the
         Working Group's technical requirements. W3C publishes a
         Candidate Recommendation to gather implementation
         -- 7 W3C Technical Report Development Process
         Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:31:14 GMT

And in Call for Implementations:

Karl Dubost -
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog -
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Monday, 9 April 2007 00:23:35 UTC