Re: CR exit criteria and features at risk for HTML5

On 08/16/2012 03:04 AM, James Graham wrote:
>
> But even with specs that are pure
> greenfield development and require a testsuite to get to Rec. people
> seem to be disappointingly reluctant to take the small extra effort to
> make a public, reusable, testsuite compared to a browser-specific
> testsuite.

+1

> For example the specification of session history is -- I think --
> considerably more buggy than the specification of the 2D context or many
> other new features. It's not like we can just drop the session history
> part of the spec, nor are people likely to be happy stalling waiting for
> browsers to rewrite such fundamental code to get to Rec. So there will
> be strong pressure to just drop those tests from the testsuite "for this
> version".

Our intuitions differ here, so this seems like is a worthwhile item to 
discuss further.

Let's assume that everybody would prefer that we demonstrate to two 
independent interoperable implementations, and do so in a time frame 
that doesn't make the spec irrelevant.  Let's further assume that there 
is at least one popular function that doesn't meet this critieria.  For 
sake of discussion, lets posit that session history is one such item.

With that assumption, can you explain why you believe that people would 
rather push to drop that part of the test suite over deferring that 
particular feature to HTML.next?

- Sam Ruby

Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 14:00:32 UTC