The CSS WG has agreed that in order to drop their vendor prefix implementors will have to publish an IR - and, if need be, the testcases used for this IR - to demonstrate how and why they believe their unprefixed version to be conformant with the spec. From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 5:07 PM To: Sylvain Galineau Cc: Levantovsky, Vladimir; liam@w3.org; StyleBeyondthePunchedCard; public-webfonts-wg@w3.org; www-font@w3.org; Martin J. Subject: Re: css3-fonts: should not dictate usage policy with respect to origin On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com<mailto:sylvaing@microsoft.com>> wrote: UA vendors demonstrate conformance with a CSS module by publishing an implementation report (IR) based on a test suite reviewed and approved by the WG. That may be the case, but it is not the purpose of the IR or the test suite. The purpose of W3C IRs and test suites is to demonstrate two or more implementations of each defined feature. This is a defined part of the W3C process with the express goal of demonstrating the implementability of defined features. Testing or verifying compliance of an implementation with a W3C spec is NOT the purpose of the IR or a W3C test suite. Notwithstanding this fact, such a test suite may be a useful tool in such a process, but it is not the purpose of the IR or test suite. The W3C does not publish compliance requirements on real world implementations nor does it define a process by means of which an implementation may be certified to be compliant (with conformance requirements). G.
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 00:46:23 UTC