RE: After 5

>> [..] 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.

Hi, Joe Developer here,

I agree that it is useful to have an overview of what is supported in 
which browser or platform, but I don't think that is a job for the W3C 
or WHATWG. As Adrian said before me, sites like Can I Use, Mozilla 
Developer Network and Quiksmode fulfill that need.

As for the whole — CSS spec like — modular approach, I'm in favour of 
that. I think it would make things a lot clearer — you can work on and 
publish smaller parts of the spec — and would also allow what John 
Foliot calls for; a (somewhat) fixed spec. Let me elaborate on that: 
what if when a new level is published — say level 3 of the picture 
element — the old one is kept 'around' for future reference with a clear 
warning/message — like the 'This is a draft message' — that there is a 
newer version of this specification available?

Regards,

Michiel Bijl

Twitter, App.net, GitHub:
@MichielBijl

Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2014 12:46:17 UTC