Re: IMPORTANT READ - Extensions

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 11:06 PM Anthony Nadalin <>

> The current consensus position within the working group was to continue to
> push to keep the “extensions” as optional and normative, due to delays on
> meeting the ongoing requirements of the W3C for extensions an option was
> proposed at the last WG call to mark the extensions as optional and
> non-normative, but still publish the extensions as part of the
> specification. I would estimate that we would be 2-3 weeks more of
> discussions with the W3C staff to complete the answers they are looking for
> if we wanted to continue to make the extensions as optional and normative.
> If WG member would like to change the current position from as optional
> and normative to optional and non-normative please respond to this message,
> or if you have other suggestions please also respond.

We support moving forward with the extensions being optional and
non-normative. I believe this only affects the appid extension, since
that's the only one where we have multiple browser implementations, but our
position doesn't depend on that.

On the plus side, doing this eliminates a few weeks of expected delay and
the risk of a longer delay (esp given the coming holidays). The downsides
seem negligible as we don't believe that the normative status has any
impact on the browsers' decision to implement or not implement something.


Received on Monday, 3 December 2018 20:09:24 UTC