- From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:20:14 +0000
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:37 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > Note that both of these examples are likely to be scenarios we actually face for at > least some of our specs, not just hypothetical edge cases. > > Boris, Adrian, others, do any of you have suggestions for a form of "endorsement by > implementor" that would give clear answers to these problem cases? We're talking about an implementer submitting an implementation report for passing specific test cases. For multiple people contributing to a common library, ultimately someone takes that library and packages it into an implementation that can pass the test case. Anyone that does this can endorse their implementation. Just like the criteria that deal with how independent certain implementations are there needs to be some judgement used. For two products working together, assuming both are necessary to pass the test case, then I think either should be able to submit a passing implementation (and again judgements of independent may come into play with the second passing test - does it use the same browser engine and if so is that a problem?) I'm not yet convinced that it is a good idea to conflate determining that the spec is of sufficient quality to support independent interoperable implementation with determining that the feature is compatible with the existing web. Those seem like distinct problems, the latter one being approached differently by different organisations and with different tolerances to incompatibility. Cheers, Adrian.
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2012 14:23:58 UTC