- From: pes via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 01:17:20 +0000
- To: public-device-apis-log@w3.org
> It's not. It's completely valid. A single implementer spec is not a standard. Sure, but we're not discussing whether this should be a spec, this discussion is about whether a WG should take on work for something that might eventually become a spec. I think we're agreeing on the broad point, but "there aren't currently enough implementations" is not *in and of itself* a reason to ask a WG to stop working on an item; it just means its not ready to move to rec. > I disagree. Sorry, im not following, what are you disagreeing with? I / Brave voted the same way as Moz / @tantek here. > And this one provable. @pes10k, stop avoiding my direct question: is Brave going to do the work to actually enable SecureContext and Permission Policy for Battery or not? It's a yes or no question Please take the temperature down a bit here @marcoscaceres! I'm not avoiding a question, it looks like I missed a single GH message. But no, Brave has no intention to do any work at all implementing anything relating to the battery API. We don't support it. -- GitHub Notification of comment by pes10k Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dap-charter/issues/98#issuecomment-666856719 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 31 July 2020 01:17:22 UTC