- From: JC Verdié <jc.verdie@mstarsemi.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:38:34 +0200
- To: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- CC: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, w3c-css-wg <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Giuseppe Pascale wrote: >> They're still "at risk", and the lack of publicly usable/downloadable >> implementations / tests (for the many years that the spec was in CR) >> has made it clear they're not CR-exit-worthy. >> >> > > I think this is the controversial bit. > Can you explain to me (not familiar with the CSS WG) what does > constitute a valid implementation according to the exit criteria? > > It should be clear by now, as pointed out few times [1][2][3], that > there are implementations. On the other end, if the only valid > implementations are desktop (and possibly mobile?) browsers that can > be installed directly by the end user on major OSes, and if the only > valid apps are those available on the web for free, that change things > a bit. > > In particular, can you clarify if usage such as in TV services, ebooks > or automotive would not be considered now (or in future) valid > implementations, assuming there is a not too complicated way to test > them? > > If so, what is the suggested way forward to handle these cases? Maybe > create market specific "extensions" for features that WGs are not > prepared to accept / desktop browsers to implement? Second that. I don't understand why in mordern age mobile-only or tv-only browsers should not be considered as *valid implementations*. That would be a major brake to web and tv Regards JC
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 08:40:58 UTC