Re: HTML WG rechartering: draft charter for review; deadline June 29

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Laura Carlson
<> wrote:
>> "Availability of multiple, independent, interoperable browser
>> implementations of each deliverable with normative conformance
>> requirement for browser implementations, as demonstrated by an
>> implementation report (summarizing implementation status against the
>> relevant test suite)..."
>> The word "browser" is too limiting. The current charter verbiage is
>> better as it is not as restrictive and browser centric:

The wording as drafted is deliberate. Browser implementations in
particular are crucial to consider when assessing success. There are
historical reasons to emphasize that. See XHTML2 and treating DTDs not
being rejected by validating XML tools as "implementations", etc.

I think the charter should emphasize browser implementations in
success criteria as drafted.

Henri Sivonen

Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 12:56:55 UTC