2009/6/30 Peter Kasting <pkast...@google.com>
> On Jun 30, 2009 2:17 AM, "Sam Kuper" <sam.ku...@uclmail.net> wrote:
> > > 2009/6/30 Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiff...@gmail.com>
> > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Ian Hickson<i...@hixie.ch> wrote: > >
> > > > I considered requiring Og...
> >
> > Right. Waiting for all vendors to support the specified codec would be like
> > waiting for them all to be Acid3 compliant. Better to specify how browsers
> > should behave (especially if it's how most of them will behave), and let
> > the stragglers pick up the slack in their own time under consumer pressure.
> > Sam
>
> As a contributor to multiple browsers, I think it's important to note the
> distinctions between cases like Acid3 (where IIRC all tests were supposed to
> test specs that had been published with no dispute for 5 years), much of
> HTML5 (where items not yet implemented generally have agreement-on-principle
> from various vendors) and this issue, where vendors have publicly refused to
> implement particular cases. [...]
I'd question, based on the following statements, whether your memory
of Acid3 is correct:
"Controversially, [Acid3] includes several elements from the CSS2
recommendation that were later removed in CSS2.1 but reintroduced in
W3C CSS3 working drafts that have not made it to candidate
recommendations yet."[1]
"The following standards are tested by Acid3: [...]
* SMIL 2.1 (subtests 75-76) [...]"[1]
SMIL 2.1 became a W3C Recommendation in December 2005.[2]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronized_Multimedia_Integration_Language#SMIL_2.1
So, there is some precedent for the W3C to publish specs/tests,
expecting browser vendors to catch up with them further down the line.
Sam
