W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2012

RE: [HTMLWG] CR Exit Criteria redux

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 02:40:43 +0000
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <931004c4fb9340b68cf604f26d6f766d@BL2PR03MB604.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:39 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Because otherwise I can implement part of a spec in Gecko tomorrow, put
> it in a nightly, then discover sometime during the 18 week
> nightly/beta/rc period before shipping it to actual users that that part
> of a spec is not web-compatible?
> > If someone ships an implementation that passes tests and demonstrates
> > that interoperability has been achieved, why is it necessary to wait
> another month?
> Because the problem may be that the spec is not in fact implementable
> without breaking other things and hence needs changing.

If you're worried about this in your implementation then don't submit it as
a candidate for demonstrating interop. If you're not happy until a month passes
then wait a month. Depending on the feature, I might be happy after 2 weeks or
maybe not until 2 months. I don't think the CR exit criteria needs to declare
and arbitrary one month period.

This does bring up a good point though - I think we should be clear that the
person or organisation responsible for the feature must be the one that
contributes to the interop testing. In other words, Mozilla should be responsible
for saying that the implementation and feature is stable enough and to be
considered; likewise Microsoft for Internet Explorer, etc. etc. That way you
can manage this risk according to your processes without everyone needing to
participate on the same timeline.


Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 02:41:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:27 UTC