Re: Scope of the Extensible Web Community Group [via Extensible Web Community Group]

|  I think a good source of polyfills is caniuse.com.
Great start point, indeed :-) This is something like that I was looking for, 
we can probably use this as a base for our work.



|  Whom do you intend to target with "get the polyfill concept “known”"?
Firstly, W3C editors. At this time, too few of them think about writing 
(forward) polyfills for the features they spec.  Also, when people are 
making feature requests, they should provide a prolyfill to show what they 
would like to get added to the web standards (and why). I noticed it's 
pretty hard for most people to write specifications, but most authors find 
it easy to write code. I want to make it a reflex: when you need a feature 
that no browser implement, you start by making a prolyfill to get an idea of 
how easy it's to add the feature and what are the challenges before throwing 
the idea somewhere on the web, because spec editors are probably not 
interested in doing this work because they don't need the feature you want.

So, by "advertising polyfills", I meant "get people confident they can write 
some". And getting them confident of that requires templates, samples and 
guidelines. And to make sure it's easy to write polyfills, we need to 
convince W3C members to add features to the languages that make creating 
them easy (and so we need to convince them that the time they need to get 
that right is well-spend time). Is that more evident now?



|  From experience, any guidelines [...] needs to be a living document from 
the start
Certainly. I think the wiki is the best solution for the guidelines, and 
github for the templates/framework.



|  Added some "prior art" articles to the wiki, which I thought were 
relevant here
Perfect, this is totally relevant. I already saw most of them, but not all 
so I guess I've some reading work to push on the stack ;-)

Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 16:09:17 UTC