- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:12:24 +0200
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Jun 19, 2009, at 16:57 , Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Robin Berjon wrote:
>>> * Test failures in a given implementation caused by the lack of
>>> support
>>> for a particular feature of an independent specification are not
>>> counted.
>
> I should note that if we consider WebIDL an "independent
> specification" then we're already there.
Yeah, I have this Ecmascript implementation that only supports
variable declarations (with a few bugs). But I swear it supports the
Selectors API!
Seriously though, as I explained during the last meeting it's up to
the WG to reach consensus on the exit criteria, and then up to the WG
to reach consensus on whether they've been reached or not. The point
of specifying them in advance is that it informs the community at
large about our intentions in terms of how strict we plan to be. Which
is to say: it's not a conformance clause. We don't need to be anal
about how it is formulated because we won't be writing tests in the
future to see if the WG conforms to itself. It's important to say that
we're testing the API and not actual CSS support, but we needn't go
overboard in delimiting the criteria.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Friday, 19 June 2009 15:12:59 UTC