Re: CR exit criteria and features at risk for HTML5

On 8/16/12 7:28 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> As such, the only value I can see in having an HTML5 REC at all is the
> patent policy.  From a patent-policy perspective, we want to publish
> as much material as possible as REC, as often as possible.

Aha.  Thank you.  If this is the primary reason for a REC from a browser 
implementor point of view, then things make a lot more sense.

> What needs to happen is browsers enforcing a policy of writing all
> their tests in reusable formats, and then making sure they submit
> them.  I just suggested such a policy for Mozilla:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/AUJaVnuGFKI%5B1-25%5D

That sounds like a great idea.  I hadn't realized we actually had a 
reasonable test setup on the W3C side now!

> But that still won't ensure that we get comprehensive testing.

Well, sure.  Comprehensive testing for something the size of the HTML5 
spec is a pipe dream.

> Defining REC as something that doesn't exist (like "spec that's fully
> tested and interoperably implemented") isn't going to make it exist.

That's fine, as long as we also don't define REC as "something that will 
be legally required to be implemented" or "something we're going to 
evangelize to authors"....

-Boris

Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 15:44:32 UTC