- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:29:44 -0400
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- CC: robert@ocallahan.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-html@w3.org
On 10/29/10 4:26 PM, David Singer wrote: > I have no idea what the actual state here is, but plenty of companies > have a policy of not removing features from shipping products unless > it's really really necessary (e.g. a security fix), or after a *long* > period of deprecation. And that's fine. And we want people to experiment with new web features. That likely means putting the features in shipping products so they can be experimented with by web developers. I think David's point is that just because that's happened doesn't mean the feature needs to immediately get standardized and required of all UAs, unless market forces are pushing that way anyway (e.g. the feature is being commonly used), in which case it's just that the experiment succeeded. For new stuff things are somewhat mitigated in this area by using vendor prefixes, but even there never removing the prefixed feature can cause compat issues... yet we clearly don't want to standardize those. For legacy failed experiments, which are of course unprefixed, I think we should apply the same sort of metrics. Likewise for non-legacy unprefixed things (e.g. new EcmaScript features which can't be done behind a vendor prefix). -Boris
Received on Friday, 29 October 2010 21:30:24 UTC