- From: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:04:35 +1100
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> The proposed exit criteria are in a separate thread, but essentially >>> are: >>> >>> For a set of tests based on HTML, CSS 2.1 selectors and this spec, >>> there are two implementations that pass every test interoperably, and >>> do not fail any "additional" tests based on misimplementing this >>> specification (i.e. failures based on not supporting a technology used >>> only in the additional tests, such as MathML, will not be taken into >>> account). >> >> Request for clarification. Does this require: >> >> A) There must be two implementations, each of which passes every test >> (i.e. the same two implementations pass all the tests); or >> B) For each test, there are two implementations that pass it (but not >> necessarily the same two for every test). >> >> It reads like (A), but I have seen similar wording interpreted as (B) in >> the context of other specs... > > The intention in the original exit criteria proposal [1] was for there > to be at least two complete implementations, each passing 100% of the > baseline tests. I can make this clearer in the exit criteria as follows: > > --- > > There must be at least two complete, independent implementations, each > of which must pass 100% of the baseline testsuite and should pass > additional tests, dependent on the following conditions: > > * The implementations must be native implementations in shipping > products. (JavaScript library implementations don't count). > What is the reason for the native implementation requirement? Is it W3C policy? Sean
Received on Thursday, 26 November 2009 22:05:47 UTC