On 24/06/13 01:50 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
1. "at least one other browser vendor ships -- or publicly states their
intention to ship -- a compatible implementation of this API"
Because Apple and Microsoft generally do not publicly comment on
upcoming features, and Presto is no more, in practice this will boil
down to a minimum condition of the Blink developers stating their
intention to ship an API (in Chrome, presumably). That feels too
restrictive to me. Blink's policy talks about "positive signals" from
other vendors which is much more vague. I worry that the proposed
language is too rigid and will either restrict us from innovating or
worse, be ignored.
What if we clarified earlier in the policy that things hidden behind
flags are exempt from these requirements, like Ehsan pointed out Blink does?
4. "Disputes between the API review team and the API developers will be
decided by the module owner for the API's area."
I'm not sure that there is even a module owner here to decide things.
How do you feel about Ehsan's suggestion of using the DOM module owner
as an arbiter?
5. "Once one week has passed [...]
This seems unnecessarily heavy-handed to me.
Agreed so I'll remove it. I'm actually thinking we still have the email
request but only to inform those who are interested in the feature
landing but haven't been following the bug closely. What do you think?
What about you, Ehsan?
Thanks for the feedback!
Andrew
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
