Hi Tantek, Sorry about calling 'adopted by W3C' when there's no clear evidence. I filed https://github.com/w3c/largest-contentful-paint/issues/97 for updating the 'Status of this document' and I also asked whether we should move it away from `Editor's Draft` in the same issue.
(Just as a reference, it's adopted by WebPerfWG at https://github.com/w3c/largest-contentful-paint/issues/87#issuecomment-1031605161) I'll use the template correctly next time. Thanks for pointing these issues out! Sean On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 5:52 PM Tantek Çelik <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sean, > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 7:18 AM Sean Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> In Bug 1722322, I am going to prototype the LargestContentfulPaint API. >> > > Thumbs up. > > >> This API has been moved out of WICG and adopted by W3C already. >> > > From the given link https://w3c.github.io/largest-contentful-paint/ there > is no actual indication nor evidence that it has been "adopted by W3C" in > any meaning. > > Normally a draft (even an Editor's Draft) states in its "Status of this > document" the name of the Working Group (link) that has adopted and is > working on this document within the scope of its Charter (link). > > There’s no reference to any "Working Group" or "WG" in the draft. > > Could you file a GitHub issue on the draft requesting updating its Status > section to explicitly name & link the Working Group working on it? (see > related > https://wiki.mozilla.org/ExposureGuidelines#Standardization_requirements_for_prototypes > which has been updated recently, so calling it out in particular as I > expect others on dev-platform could use a reminder as well). > > Lastly, we should avoid labeling any Editor’s Draft as "adopted by W3C" as > that indicates a degree of review & consensus that an Editor’s Draft does > not have, per https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#editors-draft. > > *Summary*: The LargestContentfulPaint API enables web developers to >> collect paint timing information on the largest painted element (determined >> by a heuristic). We have found LargestContentfulPaint has the best >> correlation with visual metrics, so we believe it is going to benefit the >> web. >> >> *Bug*: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1722322 >> >> *Standard*: https://w3c.github.io/largest-contentful-paint/ >> > Please use "*Specification:" *as in our template > https://wiki.mozilla.org/ExposureGuidelines#Intent_to_prototype. > > As much as most of us may understand the actual status of a spec is in its > contents, labeling it a "Standard" may be misinterpreted as a spec being a > lot more mature (and through standardization) than it actually is. > > >> *Platform coverage*: all >> >> *Preference*: dom.enable_largest_contentful_paint >> >> *Other browsers*: Chrome has it already for a long time. >> >> *web-platform-tests*: >> https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/largest-contentful-paint >> >> Thanks, >> >> Sean >> > > Thanks for getting the ball rolling on this Sean! > > Tantek > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "[email protected]" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-platform/CALKhkhZL4BdtTbgyWKuXugzyj65AsXr%2BSh6BPNWBOS8JL49kYQ%40mail.gmail.com.
