Re: Exit criteria in the wake of 3 engines

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Paul Irish <paul.irish@gmail.com> wrote:

> In exit criteria for many of the specs we see text like: "each
> implementation must be developed by a different party and cannot share,
> reuse, or derive from code used by another qualifying implementation"
>
> With Opera adopting Chromium, this criterium appears to have gotten
> significantly more challenging to satisfy.
>
> There were 6 two-implementation possibilities with Presto and without,
> that number is reduced to 3.
>

> Is revisiting the exit criteria worthwhile now that it seems far more
> difficult to move a spec to Rec?
>

Giving up on the two-implementations criterion would be a severe blow to
Web standards. It should be absolutely the last resort, and as Tobie said
we should wait and see how big a problem this becomes. (Has anyone looked
back over the last few years and figured out how often Opera's
implementation was needed to move a spec to Rec?)

Rob
-- 
Wrfhf pnyyrq gurz gbtrgure naq fnvq, “Lbh xabj gung gur ehyref bs gur
Tragvyrf ybeq vg bire gurz, naq gurve uvtu bssvpvnyf rkrepvfr nhgubevgl
bire gurz. Abg fb jvgu lbh. Vafgrnq, jubrire jnagf gb orpbzr terng nzbat
lbh zhfg or lbhe freinag, naq jubrire jnagf gb or svefg zhfg or lbhe fynir
— whfg nf gur Fba bs Zna qvq abg pbzr gb or freirq, ohg gb freir, naq gb
tvir uvf yvsr nf n enafbz sbe znal.” [Znggurj 20:25-28]