On Jun 20, 2009, at 1:39 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
That's true. THe question is whether a REC makes it easier to get a
new interoperable implementation. And it's open, as far as I can see.
Assuming we have implementation of everything, twice, and that for
everything we have at least two implementations that interoperate,
and that we have a very high level (95% or more) of interoperability
of at least 3 implementations, and that we have one complete
implementation, and that we are confident that the barriers to
completion are now just bugs *that will be fixed* (as opposed to
bugs that will live forever), the question becomes relevant.
In the meantime, we still don't have any consensus that our test
suite is ok, so the rest of the question is a bit academic...
... but assuming we get that, and because it seems that we are at
least very near the above set of assumptions, let's decide whether
to go the fast or hard way to REC, too. Which means more feedback on
this question is welcome.
I'd suggest the CR exist criteria should be two implementations that
100% pass the test suite, i.e. they are individually interoperable on
every feature, plus agreement from the WG that the test suite is
correct and thorough. From observed behavior, almost no implementors
consider the CR level of maturity to be a barrier to adoption, so
let's do our best to flush out all potential flaws in the spec before
we go to the essentially frozen state of REC.
Regards,
Maciej
