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

>> 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.
>
>+1

Ok, if you have to be specific please change Win8 Metro apps to Universal Windows Platform apps

>>> 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 ....

Ok then.

Greg