- From: Marcos Cáceres <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 00:33:42 -0800
- To: w3c/manifest <manifest@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Monday, 16 December 2019 08:33:44 UTC
@rniwa wrote: > FWIW, I don’t think moving to WICG is appropriate. WICG is a place for people to incubate ideas, not a place to hoard all the ideas that have failed or have been rejected (for the lack of better words) elsewhere. Essentially, what @rniwa writes this is correct. It would run into the same issue at the WICG: the WICG generally give incubations around year to mature and make progress, otherwise we [archive them](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1K2EtkvKXMDk_h2goR34uMIWmw1LfPhIi-QAJHcQBP_4/edit#gid=1759632076). > In the case of a single vendor browser feature like this, producing a technical note or adding an obsolete section in the spec is what we’d usually do. My preference is keep them documented on MDN as Chrome-only feature clearly marked as non-standard. W3C Notes or otherwise on TR confuses people... alternatively, we host it as clearly marked "unofficial", similar to [execCommand](https://w3c.github.io/editing/execCommand.html). -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/manifest/pull/836#issuecomment-565958603
Received on Monday, 16 December 2019 08:33:44 UTC