[whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, L. David Baron wrote:
> I have tried to use these markings to filter changes; however, my sense 
> was that a majority of those marked as "g" didn't actually require Gecko 
> changes.  I think that's because you often mark things as affecting 
> browsers simply because the browsers implement that section of the spec.  
> But it doesn't follow from that that the browsers need to change, if the 
> spec change is in an area where the spec is being modeled on the 
> browsers (i.e., further specification of existing behavior required for 
> Web compatibility) rather than the browsers being modeled on the spec.  
> This seems more of a problem in in areas where the browsers are closer 
> to each other than the spec is to them, since in those cases the spec 
> changes are least likely to require changes from the browsers.

Yeah. I changed at one point from trying to label which browsers would 
need to change to just labelling which changes affected normative text 
relevant to browsers, because people were complaining that I wasn't 
flagging normative changes so they would be planning changes in an area 
where they used to disagree with the spec, but then the spec changed to 
agree with them and they didn't know.

> When they do require Gecko changes, it's also often hard for me to 
> figure out if some Gecko developer needs to be notified or if that 
> developer is the person who requested the change in the first place.

Indeed. I often don't even know whether the people asking are browser 
vendors or not, in fact, let alone with which they are affiliated. :-)

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Monday, 21 November 2011 14:17:52 UTC