- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:46:10 -0700
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
On Sep 25, 2012, at 2:53 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > >> == judgment level >> >> For features that are well known to be widely implemented and deployed, the Working Group will assume effective real-world interoperability without testing. > > This scares me when it comes to features that are widely implemented > and deployed but for which we don't know how well the spec text > matches the implementations (even worse if we don't know that we don't > know). For example, browsing contexts and history are widely > implemented and deployed, but it's very likely that if someone > implemented the spec, the resulting implementation would be > Web-compatible. If you don't believe that the "browsing contexts" and "history" sections (for example) match the spec, despite apparent real-world interoperability, then I think it would be reasonable to mark those as at-risk features. To account for such cases explicitly, how about: --------- == judgment level For features that are well known to be widely implemented and deployed, and where implementations are believed to match the specification, the Working Group will assume effective real-world interoperability without testing.
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2012 15:47:14 UTC