- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:10:59 -0700
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Jun 20, 2009, at 1:39 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > That's true. THe question is whether a REC makes it easier to get a > new interoperable implementation. And it's open, as far as I can see. > > Assuming we have implementation of everything, twice, and that for > everything we have at least two implementations that interoperate, > and that we have a very high level (95% or more) of interoperability > of at least 3 implementations, and that we have one complete > implementation, and that we are confident that the barriers to > completion are now just bugs *that will be fixed* (as opposed to > bugs that will live forever), the question becomes relevant. > > In the meantime, we still don't have any consensus that our test > suite is ok, so the rest of the question is a bit academic... > > ... but assuming we get that, and because it seems that we are at > least very near the above set of assumptions, let's decide whether > to go the fast or hard way to REC, too. Which means more feedback on > this question is welcome. I'd suggest the CR exist criteria should be two implementations that 100% pass the test suite, i.e. they are individually interoperable on every feature, plus agreement from the WG that the test suite is correct and thorough. From observed behavior, almost no implementors consider the CR level of maturity to be a barrier to adoption, so let's do our best to flush out all potential flaws in the spec before we go to the essentially frozen state of REC. Regards, Maciej
Received on Saturday, 20 June 2009 17:11:37 UTC