- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 01:04:41 +0100
- To: "Chris Wilson" <cwilso@google.com>, "Clint Hill" <clint.hill@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Brian Kardell" <bkardell@gmail.com>, "Innovimax W3C" <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>, <public-nextweb@w3.org>
The following point is included in our scope statement:
• Get the concept of “forward polyfill” known by the other W3C
groups and encourage spec editors to create prototypes for their
drafts *using prolyfils*.
I therefore propose we drop the *using prolyfills* part and split that into
two separate goals:
• Get the concept of “forward polyfill” known by the other WGs
• Encourage spec editors to create prototypes for their drafts
I also agree that we should maybe explain what we mean by
the following keywords in our scope statement, as thet may seem
identical to newcomers :
polyfill - prolyfill - shim
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 00:05:10 UTC