- From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 21:12:38 +0000
- To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, 'Daniel Glazman' <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, 'Philippe Le Hegaret' <plh@w3.org>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jirka Kosek [mailto:jirka@kosek.cz] > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 4:09 PM [...] > > Although I'm far from being fan of "Living Standard" approach, "Fixed > Standard" is not good enough -- you need to know what parts of standard > are widely implemented and thus are ready to use. Developer needs simple > table where he/she can easily check whether he can safely use feature or > not. He doesn't care whether feature is defined in HTML spec, Canvas spec > or any other spec. He cares whether it's safe to use feature on project for > client who still uses IE8. I have to ask, but isn't that outside of the scope of the W3C? Or at least this WG? Isn't the job here to define specs, not to track and report on which UA supports which spec and how well? I rely on sites like Can I Use or research like PPK's to tell me what is supported across UAs. I don't come to W3C specs for that. As such, living or fixed standard wouldn't matter. I think you want a shorter timeframe between standard publications. That has no bearing on being able to answer UA support. > As features are almost exclusively added into platform, not removed, one > can imagine that fixed snapshots are created -- listing and defining features > which are ready to use at certain point of time. But that's hard to achieve > with "mastodont" like HTML spec. Again, support does not necessarily correlate with how quickly a new version of a specification is published. [...]
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 21:13:08 UTC