Re: WebPlatform Browser Support phased approach?

MDN shows two versions if that happens: one with the initial support 
with prefix, and another entry with the support without prefix. So I can 
actually extrapolate that info to the inbetween versions.

AFAIA both H5T and CIU will provide prefix-information per version.


Julee schreef op 2013-10-30 17:11:
> Hi, Ronald! Good news!
> 
> How do both methods deal with dropped prefixes?
> 
> J
> ----------------------------
> julee@adobe.com
> @adobejulee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronald Mansveld <ronald@ronaldmansveld.nl>
> Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 8:29 AM
> To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
> Cc: julee <julee@adobe.com>, Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>, 
> Niels
> Leenheer <info@html5test.com>, "public-webplatform-tests@w3.org"
> <public-webplatform-tests@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: WebPlatform Browser Support phased approach?
> 
>> OK, I've come a long way so far. There is just one decision to be 
>> made:
>> 
>> MDN provides the compat data not per version, but rather a
>> since-version.
>> 
>> Both caniuse and html5test provide the data per version (where
>> available).
>> 
>> 
>> What do we want to use? I can collapse the data from caniuse and
>> html5test to a since version pretty easily. Expanding the data from 
>> MDN
>> from a since-version up to a complete version-range might be doable 
>> as
>> well, although I have to rely on the browser-data provided in the 
>> feeds
>> from CIU and H5T to determine what versions are available.
>> 
>> Anyone with arguments towards or against either option?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ronald
>> 
>> 
>> Doug Schepers schreef op 2013-10-29 06:18:
>>> Hi, Ronald­
>>> 
>>> Since we're going with this phased approach (which I fully support),
>>> I think we should do 2 things:
>>> 
>>> 1) Use the MDN data as the baseline, since they have fairly complete
>>> data and a similar feature level as WPD (e.g., they have basically 
>>> the
>>> same page names as we do); this means you'll have to collect this 
>>> data
>>> via MDN's API;
>>> 
>>> 2) Supplement that baseline data with CanIUse and HTML5Test data
>>> where there is an equivalent feature name (e.g. "border-radius");
>>> we'll have to wait for QuirksMode and MobileHTML5 data until we have
>>> the source for that, but we will launch an "explainer" page that 
>>> tells
>>> about all our data sources and our timeline.
>>> 
>>> Does this seem like a doable approach?
>>> 
>>> Regards-
>>> -Doug
>>> 
>>> On 10/23/13 9:24 PM, Julee wrote:
>>>> Thanks much, Ronald! And everyone who is sharing their data as is!
>>>> 
>>>> I've sent feelers out regarding a work space in London next week.
>>>> Will let
>>>> you know if I hear anything.
>>>> 
>>>> In the meantime, do you have a sense of how long it might take to
>>>> normalize this phase-1 data? No biggie, just looking to fill out 
>>>> the
>>>> CSS-properties schedule.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards!
>>>> 
>>>> Julee
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>> julee@adobe.com
>>>> @adobejulee
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ronald Mansveld <ronald@ronaldmansveld.nl>
>>>> Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 3:47 PM
>>>> To: Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>
>>>> Cc: Niels Leenheer <info@html5test.com>, julee <julee@adobe.com>,
>>>> "public-webplatform-tests@w3.org" <public-webplatform-tests@w3.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: WebPlatform Browser Support phased approach?
>>>> 
>>>>> Alex Komoroske schreef op 2013-10-22 17:48:
>>>>>> I strongly support a phased approach. I'm very excited about the
>>>>>> prospect of having a more robust system set up, but as far as the
>>>>>> CSS
>>>>>> Properties launch goes, it's more important to have _something_,
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> if it's just a one-time import from a couple of sources.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I feel like there is support to do a phased approach, plus we have
>>>>> access to a (basic) set of data to get started. Coupled with the
>>>>> urgency
>>>>> to get CSS live (which I absolutely support, we've been in alpha
>>>>> long
>>>>> enough now ;) ), I think this is indeed the right path to follow.
>>>>> Plus,
>>>>> this buys us time to come up with a good plan and schemata for the
>>>>> data-exchange we want to use in the future.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Next week I'll be in London, if anyone knows a place to work for 
>>>>> me
>>>>> I
>>>>> can start building the first scripts to parse the data. I've 
>>>>> checked
>>>>> out
>>>>> the Mozilla Open Office, but to me it's pretty unclear whether 
>>>>> that
>>>>> is
>>>>> still in use, and if so: if and how I can use it. Do we have any
>>>>> Mozilla-employees on the list? Or do we have Googlers that know if
>>>>> perhaps the Google office can be used? Or any Londoners that know 
>>>>> of
>>>>> a
>>>>> place?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Worst case scenario I think I can use the City Business Library, 
>>>>> but
>>>>> my
>>>>> experience is that libraries are not always the best place to work
>>>>> from,
>>>>> especially not if you try to make full office hours.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ronald
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>

Received on Thursday, 31 October 2013 10:26:38 UTC