Re: CR exit criteria and features at risk for HTML5

On Aug 20, 2012, at 1:20 AM, Henri Sivonen <> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Charles Pritchard <> wrote:
>> 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.
> To fix this, I think it should be required that each implementation be
> in the context of a piece of software that's suitable for a person to
> use as their primary means of browsing the Web.
> This would exclude implementations that only contain one or a few
> features of the spec but don't do so in the context of a piece of
> software exposed to the full de facto compatibility requirements that
> arise from having to be compatible with existing Web content to the
> extent as to be suitable use as a person's primary means of browsing
> the Web.
> For example, I think the implementation of the HTML parsing algorithm
> that I have written should be eligible for being used as an
> implementation for assessing interoperability when considered as a
> part of Firefox, but the Java version as a mere library or even
> incorporated into an app that no one would use as their primary means
> of browsing the Web should not be eligible for assessing
> interoperability even though in the case of my example the mechanics
> for deriving one of these implementations from the other ensure that
> they run the exact same algorithm.

Is there any specific wording you'd suggest beyond what is in the proposed "Public Permissive" criteria?

>>> == implementation
>>> A user agent which: (1) implements the "Web browsers and other interactive user agents" conformance class of the specification. (2) is available to the general public. The implementation may be a shipping product or other publicly available version (i.e., beta version, preview release, or “nightly build”). Non-shipping product releases must have implemented the feature(s) for a period of at least one month in order to demonstrate stability. (3) is not experimental (i.e., a version specifically designed to pass the test suite and is not intended for normal usage going forward).

I think this effectively requires an implementation to be a bona fide attempt to implement the Web platform.


Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 17:28:46 UTC