W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > June 2013

Re: [css-ui] Agenda request: Revive directional focus navigation properties

From: JC Verdié <jc.verdie@mstarsemi.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:38:34 +0200
Message-ID: <51C16E0A.7010100@mstarsemi.com>
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

Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 08:40:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:16 UTC