- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 12:33:54 -0000
- To: www-html@w3.org
"David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:200311011020.hA1AKHj06410@djwhome.demon.co.uk... > > > > Have you considered the cost of shipping a conformant browser? > > Shipping a corrected browser will cost something similar to shipping > one with a security hot fix. Shipping such versions is common these > days!! I don't agree with this, the regression testing on a security bugfix is only relevant to other security holes, if you have to do regression testing to ensure total 100% compliance to the specification (remember I wrote in response to a suggestion that went beyond the WF requirement to actual document validity) then the cost of the fix is higher. > All new W3C "standards" have to demonstrate two interoperable implementations > (at least of any given feature). Unfortunately though this requirement is not really sufficient, since it can mean two features which are impossible reconcile in a single viewer still make it into the specification so long as there are 4 viewers implementing part. I personally would like to see a requirement that there also be two implementations covering a major portion of the specification, but I fear this would probably lead to stagnation in the specifications, I'm not sure of the solution, but the interopable implementations is an excellent start - we need to ensure it is stood by. Jim.
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2003 07:43:08 UTC