Re: CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

2009-12-01 Thread Charles McCathieNevile
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:49:58 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com wrote: Hi folks, this is a Call for consensus to request publishing the Selectors API draft at

Re: CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

2009-11-30 Thread Ian Hickson
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Anne van Kesteren wrote: The CSS WG relatively recently dropped this requirement. Developer builds are now sufficient. I was not really in favor, but most of the group was. I'm not really in favour of dropping this requirements either. The whole point of beta builds

Re: CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

2009-11-26 Thread Lachlan Hunt
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: The proposed exit criteria are in a separate thread, but essentially are: For a set of tests based on HTML, CSS 2.1 selectors and this spec, there are two implementations that pass every test interoperably, and do not fail any additional tests based on misimplementing

Re: CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

2009-11-26 Thread Lachlan Hunt
Lachlan Hunt wrote: There must be at least two complete, independent implementations, each of which must pass 100% of the baseline testsuite and should pass additional tests, dependent on the following conditions: ... The current state of implementations is as follows: Minefield: Baseline

Re: CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

2009-11-26 Thread Charles McCathieNevile
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:58:56 +0100, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote: Lachlan Hunt wrote: There must be at least two complete, independent implementations, each of which must pass 100% of the baseline testsuite and should pass additional tests, dependent on the following

Re: CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

2009-11-26 Thread Kartikaya Gupta
BlackBerry 9700 browser: (Kartikaya Gupta from RIM e-mailed me off list about this to tell me, I'm unable to verify these results myself without access to the device.) Baseline Tests: HTML/CSS2.1:PASS Additional Tests: HTML/CSS3: PASS Additional Tests:

Re: CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

2009-11-26 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 11/26/09 9:58 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: Actually, correction. Minefield and Opera don't meet the condition if we keep the shipping requirement in the exit criteria. Which imo we should. I don't think we want to be opening up that loophole. The Gecko 1.9.2 branch builds have the

Re: CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

2009-11-26 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 11/26/09 11:52 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: And I don't see any problem with using public development builds. The main problem I have with them is that they have typically not gone through the sort of full QA cycle that would point out possible problems in the implementation of the

Re: CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

2009-11-26 Thread Lachlan Hunt
Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 11/26/09 9:58 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: Actually, correction. Minefield and Opera don't meet the condition if we keep the shipping requirement in the exit criteria. Which imo we should. I don't think we want to be opening up that loophole. The Gecko 1.9.2 branch builds

Re: CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

2009-11-26 Thread Simon Pieters
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:05:31 +0100, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 11/26/09 9:58 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: Actually, correction. Minefield and Opera don't meet the condition if we keep the shipping requirement in the exit criteria. Which imo we should. I don't think we want to be

Re: CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

2009-11-26 Thread Sean Hogan
Lachlan Hunt wrote: Maciej Stachowiak wrote: The proposed exit criteria are in a separate thread, but essentially are: For a set of tests based on HTML, CSS 2.1 selectors and this spec, there are two implementations that pass every test interoperably, and do not fail any additional tests

Re: CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

2009-11-24 Thread Arthur Barstow
On Nov 18, 2009, at 6:49 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote: this is a Call for consensus to request publishing the Selectors API draft at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors-api/ Overview.html?rev=1.101content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1 as a Candidate

Re: CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

2009-11-24 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com wrote: Hi folks, this is a Call for consensus to request publishing the Selectors API draft at

Re: CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

2009-11-23 Thread Charles McCathieNevile
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:49:58 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com wrote: Hi folks, this is a Call for consensus to request publishing the Selectors API draft at

Re: CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

2009-11-19 Thread Robin Berjon
On Nov 19, 2009, at 00:49 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote: this is a Call for consensus to request publishing the Selectors API draft at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors-api/Overview.html?rev=1.101content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1 as a Candidate

CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

2009-11-18 Thread Charles McCathieNevile
Hi folks, this is a Call for consensus to request publishing the Selectors API draft at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors-api/Overview.html?rev=1.101content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1 as a Candidate Recommendation (assuming Lachy fixes the apparent

Re: CfC - publish Selectors API as CR

2009-11-18 Thread Lachlan Hunt
Charles McCathieNevile wrote: Hi folks, this is a Call for consensus to request publishing the Selectors API draft at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors-api/Overview.html?rev=1.101content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1 as a Candidate Recommendation (assuming Lachy