- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:54:14 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Robin Berjon wrote: >>At which point along the axis ranging from simple parser to behemoth browser >>does something count as an implementation? > > # implementation Duh, right there at the top of the page. I looked but instinctively skipped over to the TOC. Silly me. > # a user agent which: > # 1. implements the feature. check > # 2. is available (i.e. publicly downloadable or available through > # some other public point of sale mechanism). This is the "show > # me" requirement. check > # 3. is shipping (i.e. development, private or unofficial versions > # are insufficient). check > # 4. is not experimental (i.e. is intended for a wide audience and > # could be used on a daily basis.) It's been flagged as alpha but that's mostly because I haven't updated it in a while. It's being used in several production systems and isn't causing problems there. > However, that is not all that is required. While I imagine that > CSS::SAC would count as an implementation, it would need custom tests, > and would therefore require another implementation able to pass the > same tests in order to confirm interoperability. See the page quoted > above for the full requirements of our CR exit criteria. I believe at least one other SAC implementation also supports @namespace so that the tests could be shared accross those, perhaps using the dump format that IIRC the Mozilla team uses to test its CSS parser. -- Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr> Research Engineer, Expway http://expway.fr/ 7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 08:54:49 UTC