W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > February 2018

Re: A followup/writeup on our Monday discussions (was Re: Continuing discussion on Polyfills)

From: Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 18:04:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+KS-133e3d51zQkZrvV21B5Tj2MPp=-nQL9__d=qwevryo9mg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
Cc: Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
> If we don't have information like that available, then it seems like we
end up in a strange place where we're asking the browser to weed out the
author-provided interface (it could be done, but is there precedent for
this?) or we risk overlapping feature deployment.

That's exactly why I think we should absolutely avoid having affordances
from our publication mode being implemented using a polyfill in individual

If the fallback is a Web App, it doesn't get in the way. But if each
resource in a publication starts implementing affordances from our
publication mode, it will be nearly impossible for certain user agents (Web
and native apps) to avoid the kind of overlapping that you're describing
even with cleanly implemented polyfills.
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2018 17:12:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:52:21 UTC