- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:15:09 +0200
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi, 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. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0471.html 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 section. --- 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 http://www.w3.org/TR/. 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 Status. 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. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0788.html 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. http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/dom/selectors/001.html Based on past discussion, however, the second set is somewhat controversial, and I'm not really sure whether or not they should be included. http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/dom/selectors/002.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0637.html 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 suite. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0713.html 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. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0585.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0586.html I will work in John Resig to get those tests integrated into the test suite soon. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 12:15:54 UTC