- From: Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:31:47 +0000
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, w3c-css-wg <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>
>> On 11 Sep 2015, at 08:00, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> >> On 09/10/2015 05:17 PM, Greg Whitworth wrote: >>> >>> 2. Please change the following: >>> >>> # 3.3.3 Proprietary and Non-standardized Features # Example 2 # For >>> example, Win8 Metro apps... >>> >>> To... >>> >>> "Microsoft, Apple, and Mozilla, among others, have utilized >>> extensions to standardized APIs implemented by their respective UAs >>> that do so without allowing web content to access these features. >>> Because of this, it alleviates the opportunity for such content to >>> become dependent on their proprietary extensions." >> >> I'm not opposed to changing the example text, but I think the wording >> you propose is very abstract, and it helps in examples to be specific >> and concrete. > >+1 Ok, if you have to be specific please change Win8 Metro apps to Universal Windows Platform apps >>> 3. Please change the following: >>> >>> # 3.3.2 Market Pressure and De Facto Standards >>> # If at least three... >>> >>> If I'm not mistaken our CR Exit Criteria is only 2 and >> # we also believe that it would only take two browsers >>> (depending on the share maybe even one) implementing something that >>> becomes heavily utilized by authors to become a de facto standard >>> which should give other UAs the blessing of the CSSWG to implement >>> for web compat. >>> Due to this, we suggest changing this to: >>> >>> If at least two... >> >> It's three here because we're dealing with a case where >> a) there isn't a content dependency, because *nobody* has >> shipped an implementation for broad use yet--they're >> all behind flags or whatever >> b) the spec isn't stable (i.e. not in CR, or otherwise >> agreed to be done enough to reliably implement against) >> >> The case you're talking about where there is one (or more, but even >> just one) implementation that is heavily used falls under the >> parenthetical: >> >> # (or if a browser has broken the previous rule and shipped # for >> broad use an <a>unstable</a> or otherwise non-standard # feature in a >> production release) >> >> and in this case the number of implementations required to trigger the >> clause is just one (though preferably more). >> >> Is that making sense, or am I failing to write clearly? :) > >I think an extra bit of context at the beginning of the sentence would help >clarify what we're talking about: > > Even it if is <a>unstable</a>, if at least .... Ok then. Greg
Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 18:32:20 UTC