Re: CR exit criteria and features at risk for HTML5

On 8/15/12 2:50 PM, James Graham wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> Indeed.  Experience shows that the result will most likely be a REC
>> that can't actually be implemented without breaking web compat, so UAs
>> will either not follow the REC or errata will be needed on an ongoing
>> basis.
>
> Is there anyone who believes that won't be the case anyway?

Well, sure, but the question is one of extent of needed errata.

>> Which raises the question of why such a REC is better than a CR that
>> is updated based on implementation and testing feedback.  I would
>> really like to understand the reasons why W3C Management thinks it is.
>
> I assume it is because Rec activates parts of the Process related to IPR.

It would be good to have concrete confirmation of this assumption, if 
this is what's going on here.

> As far as I can tell the most serious danger of the less strict Process
> is that some people might decide there is less value to them in
> releasing their tests if they aren't being taken as hard currency in
> exchange for a Rec.

The most serious danger is that the spec says something ridiculous that 
no one notices because no one bothers to write tests, and then there is 
pressure against changing the text "because it's already a REC".  The 
W3C's record on actually issuing errata to HTML, or for that matter to 
various other RECs with obvious errors, is less than stellar.

> And fixing trivial -- in
> their effect, but perhaps not in their ease of patching -- bugs that are
> needed to get through Process hurdles seems strictly less valuable than
> fixing important bugs that are actually affecting users.

Sure.  The problem is that right now there are large chunks of the HTML5 
spec (e.g. the entire page loading and event queue setup) that don't 
really match any existing implementation, aren't well tested (not least 
because they're _hard_ to test), and are very likely sources of just the 
sorts of important bugs you're talking about.

> So in my ideal world, the development of the testsuite continues almost
> unaffected by the decision here. Certianly I don't foresee it affecting
> Opera's desire to make our tests public. Possibly it is hopelessly naive
> of me to think that the same will be true for others?

I think it might be somewhat naive, but the real issue with the loose 
approach is that it gets us to REC before we can possibly have a 
reasonable test suite and before we know whether the most risky parts of 
the spec match reality.

-Boris

Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 04:00:31 UTC