- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:26:32 +0000
- To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Quoting James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>: > To meet the goal of informing readers of the spec about the likely > stability of different sections, we are much better off adding > informative annotations to each section that describe the stability of > that section using criteria such as whether the feature is supported in > released user agents. Such annotations would be both positive "Ships in > multiple UAs; likely to be stable" and negative "Unimplemented, likely > subject to change or removal". It is notable that the WHATWG draft > already has a system for doing this based on user-supplied information. > It would not (I expect) be a technical challenge to statically add > those annotations to the W3C version of the spec. Indeed it turned out that this was not a significant technical challenge; I added a simple feature to anolis that allows reading annotations from a file in a format compatible with the WHATWG annotation system and adding them statically to the generated spec. I have not added this feature to pimpmyspec.net yet but will in due course. A copy of the spec with the WHATWG annotations in is at [1] (that URL is not expected to be long-lasting). Note how this document makes the relative maturity of the <iframe> ("working draft") and <video> ("last call for comments") sections clear. I understand that some people will think that reusing W3C language is inappropriate; that can be changed. Please bear in mind that this document may contain errors since my spec-processing pipeline is immature; indeed I spotted some encoding issues already. [1] http://hoppipolla.co.uk/410/spec-full.html
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 21:27:22 UTC