- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:01:46 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 9/25/12 11:46 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > 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. Indeed. For what it's worth, real-world interop here is quite poor, with many cases ending up with two incompatibilities canceling out in the cases that matter. And yes, the match between the spec and UAs is also poor, and it's not obvious to me that implementing the spec in this area is web-compatible at all. :( In fact, we know it's not; every time we've tried we've found more caveats and edge cases that the spec did not account for... > 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. This seems ok to me, I guess. -Boris
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2012 16:02:18 UTC