- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:27:49 +0200
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
On 19/04/13 11:17, Marcos Caceres wrote: >> The fact the WHATWG spec is a "living standard" also makes it totally >> impossible for a third-party to validate a webapp against a given state >> of the art. > > I don't know what that means. Can't you just open up a bunch of browsers and test your app in those? Like you said, they are updated regularly and follow the WHATWG spec closely. Exactly what I said, you don't understand their constraints at all, you probably never worked for such companies. Large companies have hundreds of critical webapps. Testing them - and I mean testing every single feature of them - against a given version of ONE Web browser takes between a few weeks and a few months. Testing against "a bunch of browsers" takes months. In the meantime, the spec has changed, the browsers have changed; the spec URL now shows the latest edits and the older browsers are hard to download. This is not a sustainable situation for such users. > The fact that they are already relying on the Web for "hyper-critical apps" (whatever that is) is already proof that it's working - and that governments are using it, is also a good indicator. Let me laugh. Did you follow the Mozilla Entreprise mailing-list when the fast release process was announced ?!? Maybe you should dive into that list and read it. > Somehow, I don't think so. I don't ask you to. A large part of corporate users of the Web do. That should be enough to make all of us think twice about our standards processes, including WHATWG. But since we already said that multiple times in the past, I guess it's worthless at least on the WHATWG side. </Daniel>
Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 09:28:18 UTC