- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:59:10 +1000
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
BTW: the HTML5.1 spec has no such "at risk" list (yet): http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/ Silvia. On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Jukka K. Korpela > <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi> wrote: >> 2013-09-23 4:52, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >>> >>> FYI: being "at risk" has nothing to do with the usefulness of the >>> feature - the spec's concern is whether there is cross-UA support of >>> the feature. >> >> >> Which in turn depends on how useful the feature is seen by implementors, >> doesn't it? >> And on the amount of work needed for implementation, of course. >> >> >> >>> Such a feature can be a useful feature (I personally have >>> used such input types in my recent apps), but its standardisation may >>> need to be delayed to the next version of HTML if UAs don't have >>> uniform support of the feature. That's all. >> >> >> According to >> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/input >> the support status for type=date is the same as for type=datetime. So there >> must be >> something else than the current implementation status that explains why >> type=date >> is not marked as being at risk and type=datetime is not. > > It's simply a matter of process. At the time that the spec went into > Last Call, implementations were behind, so the feature was put "at > risk". Now it's supported, so if tests confirm uniform support, it's > not at risk any more. > > If the HTML5 spec goes back into Last Call, that list can be updated. > > Silvia.
Received on Monday, 23 September 2013 06:59:56 UTC