- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:42:19 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 08/16/2012 01:22 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Aug 15, 2012, at 4:50 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> 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