- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 08:57:32 -0600
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+ckxWuw-dfuRtqytWCavrNGPVKPvXTdr06EwBNnEvn2gg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, Glenn Adams wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > > > > > Compraing implementations to anything but the very latest draft is not > > > only a waste of time, it's actively harmful to interoperability. At no > > > point should any implementor even remotely consider making a change > > > from implementing what is currently specified to what was previously > > > specified, that would literally be going backwards. > > > > That sounds reasonable, but its not always true (an exception to every > > rule, eh). For example, in order to ship a device that must satisfy > > compliance testing to be certified, e.g., to be granted a branding > > label, to satisfy a government mandate, etc., it may be necessary to > > implement and ship support for an earlier version. > > For pointless certification purposes, you can use any random revision of > the spec -- just say what the revision number is and use that (and > honestly, who cares how well you implement that version -- it's not like > the testing process is going to be thorough). Don't ship that, though. > Whatever you ship should be regularly kept up to date with changes to the > spec as they occur. (It's not an option to not be able to ship fixes, > since otherwise you'd be unable to fix security vulnerabilities either, > which is obviously a non-starter.) What you ship, and subsequent revisions > thereto, is what you should be spending any serious amount of time > testing. And for that, you shouldn't use a snapshot, you should use the > latest revision of the spec. > > For the pointless certification, just as for the patent coverage, we > should publish whatever revision we have and just stamp it as a REC. It > doesn't matter what bugs it has. We know it'll have bugs -- the day after > it's published, maybe even earlier, we'll find new bugs that will need > fixing. It doesn't really matter, since it's not for use by implementors, > just by lawyers and pointless certification teams. > I would respond, but it would be ... pointless. > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' >
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 14:58:21 UTC