- 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