W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2015

Re: [css-2015] Snapshot prose, prefixing policy updated

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:16:11 +0900
Cc: Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, w3c-css-wg <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3776CBD6-B789-4B85-86F2-7E56C99C6A7D@rivoal.net>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>

> On 11 Sep 2015, at 08:00, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 09/10/2015 05:17 PM, Greg Whitworth wrote:
>> 2. Please change the following:
>> # 3.3.3 Proprietary and Non-standardized Features
>> # Example 2
>> # For example, Win8 Metro apps...
>> To...
>> "Microsoft, Apple, and Mozilla, among others, have utilized
>> extensions to standardized APIs implemented by their respective
>> UAs that do so without allowing web content to access these
>> features. Because of this, it alleviates the opportunity for
>> such content to become dependent on their proprietary extensions."
> I'm not opposed to changing the example text, but I think
> the wording you propose is very abstract, and it helps in
> examples to be specific and concrete.


>> 3. Please change the following:
>>     # 3.3.2 Market Pressure and De Facto Standards
>>     # If at least three...
>> If I'm not mistaken our CR Exit Criteria is only 2 and
> # we also believe that it would only take two browsers
>> (depending on the share maybe even one) implementing
>> something that becomes heavily utilized by authors to
>> become a de facto standard which should give other UAs
>> the blessing of the CSSWG to implement for web compat.
>> Due to this, we suggest changing this to:
>>     If at least two...
> It's three here because we're dealing with a case where
>  a) there isn't a content dependency, because *nobody* has
>     shipped an implementation for broad use yet--they're
>     all behind flags or whatever
>  b) the spec isn't stable (i.e. not in CR, or otherwise
>     agreed to be done enough to reliably implement against)
> The case you're talking about where there is one (or more,
> but even just one) implementation that is heavily used falls
> under the parenthetical:
>  # (or if a browser has broken the previous rule and shipped
>  # for broad use an <a>unstable</a> or otherwise non-standard
>  # feature in a production release)
> and in this case the number of implementations required to
> trigger the clause is just one (though preferably more).
> Is that making sense, or am I failing to write clearly? :)

I think an extra bit of context at the beginning of the sentence would help clarify what we're talking about:

  Even it if is <a>unstable</a>, if at least ....

 - Florian
Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 01:16:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:56 UTC