- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:18:01 +0000
- To: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
- Cc: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Tuesday, 20 March 2012 at 08:15, Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich wrote: > Hi Dom, > > I am glad to chimed in, because you do have a very good grasp of the process. > > And I really like your points. > > My proposal for experimental specs at the last AC meeting, which I guess in the end led to the establishment of this group, pretty much rests on what you explain to be a feature based focus. > > That is exactly what I meant, but you said it better. > There are always portions of a spec that are stable enough. > > I had suggested perhaps simply labeling these "features" as stable such that implementers can move on with a higher degree of certainty that that portion will not change anymore. > Will there be 100% security of stability? > Of course not, but that would be unreasonable. > You expanded that into the review and testing portion, which is absolutely correct. > > In that sense, getting to your question to what a feature is, I propose applying that label to any given section of a spec that the WG views as a feature and may declare stable out of their own volition. They would know best and could decide best. > I'll note that the WHATWG HTML spec has had per feature stability labels for a couple of years. Not sure how they determine feature stability, however (i think it's based on implementation reports and on the bug-count in their bug tracker for a given feature). -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 11:18:35 UTC