- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:03:01 +0000
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Tuesday, 20 March 2012 at 11:54, Steve Faulkner wrote: > Hi marcos, > > > Hypothetically, how could we do better at the W3C? What mistakes is the WHATWG making that their stability labels are inaccurate? > > The main mistakes appear to be: > Providing feature implementation information that is not up to date. > Not clearly defining how the various states are derived. [1] > No apparent QA of the information, no one is responsible? > > So how could it be done better: > Ensuring that if information is up to date and if not, providing a clear indication that it is not. I guess this would need some kind of voting/reporting system? This is a moving target. > Clear definition of the various states and steps to define them, taking into account a real definition of "interoperable implementation" I guess 2 or more things (of different DNA) that are able to pass a set of given tests (and that those tests are computationally representative of the feature being tested)? > Ensuring if such information is to be provided , there is responsibility taken for its accuracy. This seems to be a failing on relying on the community (maybe… as people can submit corrections). > > [1] http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#When_will_HTML5_be_finished.3F >
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 12:03:34 UTC