W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

[selectors-api] Transitioning to CR

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:15:09 +0200
Message-ID: <4A38DE4D.2080503@lachy.id.au>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
   In order to complete the transition of Selectors API to CR, there 
were a number of things that needed to be done, following the call for 
consensus we had in April/May.


1. Write CR Exit Criteria
2. Write updated Status of the Document section
3. Complete the test suite

*CR Exit Criteria*

I propose the following as the CR exit criteria:

At least two interoperable implementations of each feature, dependent 
upon the following conditions:

* Each individual test in the test suite must pass in at least two of
   the reviewed implementations.

* Test failures in a given implementation caused by the lack of support
   for a particular feature of an independent specification are not
   counted.  This does not apply to failures caused by an incorrect
   implementation of such features. (e.g. IE lacks support for many of
   the CSS3 selectors tested in the test suite, but to be fair, these
   failure should be ignored.)

* Each implementation reviewed must have at least a 95% pass rate, not
   counting ignored tests.

(With these criteria, I believe the current available implementations in 
at least Firefox, Opera and Safari, will be sufficient to exit CR, even 
though each fails a small subset of the tests.)

*Status of the Document*

In December, I wrote a draft transition request which can be used. 
However, I've made minor updates to the proposed Status of the Document 


This section describes the status of this document at the time of its 
publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of 
current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical 
report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at 

This is the XXX June 2009 Candidate Recommendation of Selectors API. W3C 
publishes a Candidate Recommendation to indicate that the document is 
believed to be stable and to encourage implementation by the developer 
community. The Web Applications (WebApps) Working Group expects to 
request that the Director advance this document to Proposed 
Recommendation once the Working Group has developed a comprehensive 
Selectors API test suite, and demonstrated at least two interoperable 
implementations for each test. There are several known implementations 
believed to be complete and interoperable (or on the point of being so) 
and the WebApps Working Group expects to develop a test suite and use it 
to show that that these implementations pass by July 2009. The Working 
Group does not plan to request to advance to Proposed Recommendation 
prior to 01 July 2009.

The Last Call Working Draft for this specification resulted in a number 
of Last Call comments which have all been addressed by the Working 
Group, a list of which can be found in the Disposition of Comments.

The W3C Membership and other interested parties are invited to review 
the document and send comments to public-webapps@w3.org (public archive) 
with [selectors-api] in the subject, through 12 December 2008. (Please 
note that a different list was used until mid 2008, so some old messages 
are archived there instead). The editor’s copy of this specification is 
available in W3C CVS. A detailed list of changes is also available from 
the CVS server.

This document was developed by the Web Applications Working Group. The 
Working Group expects to advance this Working Draft to Recommendation 

Publication as a Candidate Recommendation does not imply endorsement by 
the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, 
replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is 
inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.

This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 
2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent 
disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that 
page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual 
who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes 
contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance 
with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.


*Test Suite*

Finally, there were a number of additional tests that needed to be 
reviewed and either incorporated into the test suite, or rejected.

1. Erik proposed additional tests related to using Selectors API with 
SVG content.  His proposal would add SVG directly into the existing test 
suite file.  However, as the existing file is HTML, not XHTML, this will 
not work in current browsers, and would instead require the tests to be 
in a separate XHTML file.


2. Hixie proposed two sets of tests.  The first seems to be 
non-controversial and I believe it should be integrated into the test suite.


Based on past discussion, however, the second set is somewhat 
controversial, and I'm not really sure whether or not they should be 


3. The missing tests that I pointed out relating to the namespace syntax 
do need to be included, as they will test specific conformance 
requirements in Selectors API that are currently not tested in the test 


Additionally, in order to make the tests easier to count, I think we 
should consider grouping the tests according to the level of Selectors 
used for a given test, so that tests using CSS2 Selectors can be easily 
distinguished from those using Selectors Level 3.  In particular, this 
would make assessing IE's conformance easier since they don't claim to 
support many level 3 selectors and those tests shouldn't be counted.


I will work in John Resig to get those tests integrated into the test 
suite soon.

Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 12:15:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:54 UTC