- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:10:36 +0200
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, public-mwts <public-mwts@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
Robin Berjon wrote: > On Sep 29, 2009, at 18:36 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: >> For what it's worth, given that: >> * P&C has been vastly rewritten >> * test results collection hasn't started (AFAIK) >> * you're suggesting to remove a bunch of conformance requirements which >> could be assessed as a substantive change >> I think it might be worth pushing P&C to a short Last Call period (3 >> weeks), asking to focus only on the changes since CR, and then when the >> implementation reports are finalized, ask to go to PR directly. > > I like this plan. My primary concern is that we communicate it clearly > to third parties. Agreed. However, CR is a call for implementation - it is not a sign of complete stability. The significant changes I've been making have been mainly because of bugs Opera found during implementation and through verification through the test-case creation process. There were bugs. We fixed them. > Also, do we have some visibility on which implementations (and how many) > stand a chance of passing the TS? I have not run it through Opera's internal imp yet. But don't foresee any issues passing. If we can get Wookie to pass too, then we have the two implementations needed to proceed to PR. It should not affect third parties too much if we time it perfectly: That is, republish LC once both implementations are passing every test in the test suite. Then, during the first week LC period we slap together the implementation report and have it ready to submit to the W3C for a speedy, yet process-proof, transition to PR. Kind regards, Marcos
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 10:11:11 UTC