Re: CR exit criteria and features at risk for HTML5

On Aug 19, 2012, at 4:00 AM, Chaals McCathieNevile <> wrote:

> I'm happy with this too - but I am not happy if the test boils down to "must work in two browsers". It must be possible to *create* HTML5 too, and manage it effectively for a large content provider. It must be possible for a small business to effectively use HTML5 without all hand-authoring their code. And it must be feasible for organisations to include HTML5 as a reference - for a Statement of Work, as a basis for testing a product, as something to be compatible with in developing a technology.
> I don't know if this adds to the CR timeline, but it means that there is more to proving HTML5 works than getting a lot of tests from a small handful of browser makers, and running their products through the collection.

All three versions of proposed CR exit criteria that I've posted limit the interoperability requirement to "Web browsers and other interactive user agents". See here for the full list of conformance classes: <>. Now that I read closer, maybe it should actually be "Visual user agents that support the suggested default rendering", since that is the strictest set.

I personally do not think the other conformance classes need explicit CR exit criteria for the following reasons:

- Most (such as "Non-interactive presentation user agents") are effectively subsets of the mainline browser criteria.
- For the "Conformance checkers" conformance class, we're likely to have only one serious implementation.
- The criteria for "Data mining tools" are too vague to test.
- For "Authoring tools and markup generators", the conformance criteria are essentially that their output must pass a conformance checker. I believe we already know this to be possible.

That said, it's ultimately up to the Working Group whether to consider other conformance classes.


Received on Sunday, 19 August 2012 21:44:56 UTC