- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:58:42 +0000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>, Adrian Price <adrian.price@rogue-technologies.com>, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU] > On 7/12/10 12:51 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > > I think the underlying issue here is: when does a browser vendor make > their > > platform declare support for a feature ? > > This is fundamentally the "when does the browser vendor drop the vendor > prefix on the feature implementation?" question, right? > > > Thus what we ideally want is a clear, verifiable criteria for a UA to > claim support. > > For instance: the spec/feature is in CR, the testsuite for the > spec/feature is > > stable, an implementation report has been submitted showing the > browser passes all > > current testcases for the feature. > > Again, sounds a lot like the vendor prefix situation.... (except for > that bit about test suites, of course, as demonstrated by the > availability of unprefixed display:run-in in the UAs that implement it, > for example). Fundamentally, yes, same kind of argument. Except that prefixes can be dropped on CR entry while test suites and implementation reports are required for CR exit.
Received on Monday, 12 July 2010 20:59:23 UTC