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

Re: [HTMLWG] CR Exit Criteria redux

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:11:21 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2mAz0HF-Qb1eioiG+yUkBQ031j9ixn24CUSZOWEojws8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 8:07 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> I see your point. But I think such a requirement would be unacceptable to members of
>> the Accessibility Task Force, who will likely want to submit implementation claims
>> based on combinations of totally separate software (a browser and a screenreader)
>> and where it's unlikely the implementor of either piece would make a submission,
>> let alone both. So I have not added it to the draft CR exit criteria.
> It is unacceptable to Microsoft that anyone other than Microsoft submit implementation
> reports for Internet Explorer.

Shouldn't the testing for and decision about UAs having interoperable
implementations stay with the W3C based on the testing framework that
we set up?

I'm just concerned that if we only accept implementation reports by
the people that implement them, then we get biased statements that
we're not allowed to counter-check. Please don't take this as applying
to MS alone - I mean this as a general problem. What would stop any
browser from claiming that they implement interoperable support for
all HTML5 features unless there is an indepentent cross-check?

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 01:12:09 UTC

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