Re: CR exit criteria and features at risk for HTML5

On 8/17/2012 4:32 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <> 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