Re: CR exit criteria and features at risk for HTML5

On 8/17/12 9:35 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Boris Zbarsky <> wrote:
>> Because if it's not planned to be released to users then the bar for how
>> much content it can break is much higher, not least because it hasn't gotten
>> as much user testing.
>> And if implementing the spec requires breaking content that user-facing
>> implementations are unwilling to break, then that's somewhat bad.
> I agree that the spec can't be deemed really stable until there's
> enough web content out there that browsers can't change significantly.
>   I don't think REC should be contingent on the spec being really
> stable.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said.

The point of the two implementations requirement is to make sure the 
spec is in fact implementable as written.

If it's implementable standalone but not as part of the overall web 
platform, that's not very helpful.

So if you're going to have a two implementations requirement at all, the 
only thing that makes sense is that they be good-faith implementations 
of the full web platform.  At least in my opinion.


Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 16:20:45 UTC