- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:30:08 -0400
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Robin Berjon wrote:
> Yeah, I have this Ecmascript implementation that only supports variable
> declarations (with a few bugs). But I swear it supports the Selectors API!
Yes, that's why there was an "if" in what I said. If only English had
clearer grammatical markers for the subjunctive!
> 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.
Makes sense to me. I thought that was the point of Lachlan's mail: to
see consensus on the former. Did I misunderstand?
Just to be clear, here are the things that stand between where we are
and having two 100% interoperable implementations last I looked at the
tests.
1) Gecko's handling of null passed to a string value doesn't match
WebIDL (treated as empty string instead of "null");
2) Webkit's handling no value when a string is expected doesn't match
WebIDL (not sure of the details here).
If we exclude issues regarding which precise selectors should match
where (as in, bugs in the CSS implementation), then instead of fixing
both of those, we could fix one of those, and fix Opera's handling of
null and undefined passed to a string value (doesn't match WebIDL) and
then we'd also have "interoperable" implementations.
Whether the two issues above should block passing out of CR is up to the
working group, of course.
-Boris
Received on Friday, 19 June 2009 15:30:51 UTC