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

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

From: Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:31:47 +0000
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, w3c-css-wg <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY1PR03MB14393EA9922E41BECF4D3835A4500@CY1PR03MB1439.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
>> 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.

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.

Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 18:32:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:53 UTC