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

Hi Henri,

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Henri Sivonen <> wrote:
> 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.

Emphasis is fine but the current verbiage seems to restrict  success
solely to browsers. Let's not exclude other important user agents i.e.
assistive technology.

Best Regards,

Laura L. Carlson

Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 16:11:09 UTC