- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:27:53 +0000
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Hi Steve, On Tuesday, 20 March 2012 at 11:24, Steve Faulkner wrote: > Hi Marcos, > > "I'll note that the WHATWG HTML spec has had per feature stability labels for a couple of years. Not sure how they determine feature stability, however (i think it's based on implementation reports and on the bug-count in their bug tracker for a given feature)." > > looking at the data available it appears unreliable at best. That may be so, but that's kinda the point (and the issue with defining "feature" and "stability"). What measure should have been used? Who is doing it best? > Also does not take into account accessibility implementation support. Also supports the point above. Hypothetically, how could we do better at the W3C? What mistakes is the WHATWG making that their stability labels are inaccurate?
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 11:28:22 UTC