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For all of these, an out-of-date and known-buggy REC seems worse than a 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.

-Boris

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