- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:10:15 -0700
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thursday 2012-09-20 21:38 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Sep 20, 2012, at 9:15 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > > > > > My interpretation of this is that it has to be shipping in a > > nightly, preview, or beta release for a month in order to count. > > > > My memory of the motivation for this, in the CSS WG discussions, was > > that we didn't want to require waiting until something shipped in a > > final release, but if it hadn't shipped in a final release, we > > wanted to have a decent indication that it wasn't going to need to > > be reverted in order to be Web-compatible. > > Makes sense. Do you feel some sort of claim by the implementor that the implementation is sufficiently stable and mature would be an adequate replacement? Maybe. I think for things that are well-isolated new features it might be reasonable, but for things that have any interactions with existing behavor I think it's worth leaving the one-month rule. It's worth noting that the worst-case result of having the one-month rule is that it delays entering PR by one month. (In the cases where it delays it longer, I think that's a sign that the feature was not, in fact, interoperably implementable, and therefore it's not the worst case.) -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 05:10:41 UTC