Re: CR exit criteria and features at risk for HTML5

On 08/16/2012 01:22 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 4:50 PM, John Foliot <> wrote:
>> Steve Faulkner wrote
>>> hi Maciej, (2) The strict version requires that implementations
>>> used to prove interoperability must be public, but must not be
>>> experimental (they can be betas, nightlies, developer previews or
>>> the like); the permissive version allows non-public or purely
>>> experimental implementations to be cited.
>>> don't like the idea of allowing  " non-public or purely
>>> experimental implementations to be cited."
>> +1 there.
>> At a minimum I think that a publicly available beta would be a
>> reasonable cut-off line.
> The "strict" version does allow publicly available betas and the
> like. I'm curious whether anyone supports allowing non-public or
> experimental builds. I'll also check whether those who suggested this
> feel strongly about it.

I'm strongly opposed to taking any options off the table prematurely.

Ultimately the "permissive" option will be a judgment call.

To be clear, it wasn't so far in the distant memory when IE didn't 
support either Canvas or SVG.  In such a context, I would agree that a 
statement that "we've implemented these features privately in a purely 
experimental build that we are not prepared to share" wouldn't be 
sufficient for our purposes.

On the other hand, I know of companies (such as your employer, for 
example), that often are reticent to prematurely release things publicly 
for whatever reason.  Going with that example, if there was a divergence 
in the spec on a minor edge case, and it was acknowledged by a 
representative of Apple that this was, in fact, a bug; in such a 
scenario I would be inclined to take a corporation with the credibility 
of Apple on its word.

> - Maciej

- Sam Ruby

Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 18:42:47 UTC