Re: CR exit criteria and features at risk for HTML5

On 8/16/12 8:21 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
> Some other audiences that needs consideration, but aren't mentioned in
> your feedback, are authors, people writing guidance for authors, and
> other spec writers (EPUB etc.).

For all of these, an out-of-date and known-buggy REC seems worse than a 
more up-to-date spec.  The only benefit of a REC for such groups is if 
the REC doesn't get changed, but an unchanging REC is even more likely 
to not match implementation reality.

It's a hard problem, I agree.  I'm not quite sure how to solve it well. 
  For authors, per-feature stability annotations may be the way to go. 
For something like EPUB, I don't really know how to proceed.

> Information about the interoperable
> implementation status of features is critical for that audience.

I agree, but that information is not captured in a REC.

> These audiences likely naively assume that features in RECs should work.

I think this assumption is false to a greater or lesser extent....  I 
believe that's what you're saying also?

> HTML-Next/Living Standard and the linter need to do a better job at
> highlighting implementation status. I agree adoption of a common test
> format could help provide better information here. Does Mozilla have a
> test harness for running the HTML test suite?

Apparently, yes, as of recently.  So I'll see what we can do about 
mirroring tests back and forth.


Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 15:51:13 UTC