- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:55:56 +0000
- To: public-css-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14072 --- Comment #8 from Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > (In reply to comment #5) > > > We don't need a "statement of interest from a browser vendor" when its the > > > right thing to do. > > > > Yes, we absolutely do, when it's a feature with a high chance of being > > useless in practice. > > > > I'm with Simon - unless you can show devices which are important enough for > > authors and/or implementors to care about, I'm against adding this. It's > > not important enough to stand on its own theoretical legs ahead of > > demonstrated interest. > > I wouldn't mind removing pixelDepth and colorDepth, which are equally > "useless in practice" and possess no justification for inclusion other than > they happen to be implemented in a bug-for-bug compatible manner. > > However, if these are to be implemented, then I will formally object if an > alphaDepth is not defined as well. I mean "implemented in the spec". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 05:55:56 UTC