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

On Jul 19, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Laura Carlson <> wrote:

> 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.

Personally, I think it's fine to make the success criteria recognize other important implementation categories. But I also agree with Henri reasoning that browsers need to be called out specifically. One way to meet both of these requests would be to keep the item about browsers specifically, and add success criteria relating to other categories. There already is a separate bullet for "Availability of authoring tools and validation tools." We could add more.


Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 17:57:38 UTC