- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:12:35 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Robin Berjon wrote: > On Jun 19, 2009, at 17:14 , Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > Robin Berjon wrote: > > > Out of curiosity, why not make it two interoperable implementations of > > > *all* the tests, except those stemming from a lack of support for CSS? > > > > I was advised to set the requirements low so that it would be easier > > to proceed past CR. With these requirements, we can get past CR > > relatively quickly. If we need to wait for at least 2 implementations > > that both get 100%, that will just delay the spec by 6 to 12 months > > awaiting the browser vendors' next release cycle. > > I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I am unaware of any > external time pressure on this specification. If there aren't any, why > not delay it so we can do the hard (and right) thing of only shipping > when we have fully demonstrated interoperability? That seems wiser to me too. The rush is to get interoperable implementations, not to get RECs. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 19 June 2009 17:13:08 UTC