- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:33:10 -0700
- To: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 8/17/2012 4:32 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: >> 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 think any publicly-available implementation should definitely count. > If it's interoperable to the level we want, why should we care if the > implementer doesn't want to release it to all their users yet for some > reason, or labels it "experimental"? Even if someone only implemented > it in a browser extension -- if it's an interoperable implementation, > it's an interoperable implementation. The point is just to show that > it's interoperably implementable based on the spec, so any > implementation at all is fine. But we should only count public > implementations, for the sake of transparency. > They must be broadly available and distributed. I personally have four implementations of HTML5 Canvas; I do not consider my personal quorum to meet the bar for interoperable implementations, despite their open source and provable interop.
Received on Saturday, 18 August 2012 06:33:32 UTC