Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions Telecon 201-08-17

On 08/18/2011 11:47 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> "Strip the module of all features that are known unstable;
>      push them to the next level or whatever"
> Which is what we did in Seattle and are now reversing for no good reason.

We're not reversing it, we're adjusting the dividing line given
new feedback from others, in this case the i18nWG.

> If there is no implementation experience for it a feature has no business going to CR;

That is not how the W3C process is set up. Implementations are
explicitly *not required* for entrance to CR.

> "The key point is that the switch to CR is not dependent on
> whether there are implementations. " No wonder the WG has produced so many CRs that never went anywhere. The "key point" here is that any standardization approach that does not depend on any implementation in order to reach the final stage in the process - the one where testcases and implementation reports are created - is broken and in dire need of fixing. If the standard track does not reflect any kind of concrete implementation progress then it is effectively meaningless.

CR is not the final stage in the process, REC is. The intention of CR
is to allow time for implementations and to reflect the feedback of
that experience into the spec. The intention of the at-risk list is to
allow the CR to drop features that do not garner implementations so
that the rest of the spec can make progress.

~fantasai

Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 18:58:49 UTC