- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:03:14 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24812 --- Comment #5 from Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> --- (In reply to Edward O'Connor from comment #1) > <details> is exposed to the Web in Safari, Chrome, and Opera: > http://caniuse.com/#feat=details > > This should only count as one implementation, since the work predates Blink > forking WebKit. But nevertheless, claiming that it has no implementations is > innacurate. I'm not sure that we should count this as just one implementation. I see two different reasons behind the "two implementations" rule. One is implementability, and the other is implementer interest. For something like WebSQL, with all the complexity of SQL and its known interoperability issues, if everyone is using the same library then it's clear we have just one implementation (and a problem). For <details>, I think that argument is much less powerful. The fact that it still is in both WebKit and Blink (it could have become disabled in either) IMHO shows interest in supporting it. I reckon we can keep it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2014 12:03:18 UTC