On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>wrote: > [Boris Zbarsky:] > > The idea is to not put the experimental features out to a wide testing > > audience, thus limiting their use to experimental, non-production > > situations (because they will only work in browsers used by a few hundred > > thousand people at the most). > > > > This setup gives authors a chance to try the feature out and report > > feedback without having to deal with pages that actually depend on the > > feature. > > So what I am missing is that these do not make it into public releases, > Betas and other bits generally downloaded by large populations so that > web authors cannot rely on them in their pages ? > > In the case of IE, Previews are actually downloaded by large samples > but I'd assume they qualify since they have no chrome and really > targeted at developers. What would be the vehicle for Firefox ? > > I'm still not quite sure I like the idea of releasing experimental features > completely unmarked as such - i.e. they look, smell and act like 'real' > features - and then pull them out later. I would suggest some kind of > explicit opt-in in the stylesheet letting the author declare 'yes, turn > on the experimental stuff for browser X'. The explicit opt-in is the Dev channel restriction, but we've considered something like an "about:flags" toggle until things are more broadly agreed. In either case, no developer is going to be able to target a sizable population of users with these experimental features so long as the dev-channel restriction is in place, meaning the fear of it "leaking out" into the public web isn't really a problem. > At a minimum it'd help spot the > problem when such pages make it to the public web and someone reports a bug > against them (you can count on that happening).Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2011 20:07:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:56 UTC