On Nov 18, 2009, at 3:49 PM, 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=1.101&content-type=text/html;
%20charset=iso-8859-1 as a Candidate Recommendation (assuming Lachy
fixes the apparent encoding errors, the incorrect URIs and so on as
editorial corrections).
I support this publication.
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 this
specification (i.e. failures based on not supporting a technology
used only in the additional tests, such as MathML, will not be taken
into account).
Request for clarification. Does this require:
A) There must be two implementations, each of which passes every test
(i.e. the same two implementations pass all the tests); or
B) For each test, there are two implementations that pass it (but not
necessarily the same two for every test).
It reads like (A), but I have seen similar wording interpreted as (B)
in the context of other specs. My preference is (A). Either way, I'd
suggest that the actual exit criteria should be worded carefully to
make clear which is intended.
Regards,
Maciej
