Re: Collecting web platform features implementation status

[Andrew Overholt]

Harald (on CC) is working on it here:

https://github.com/mozilla/platatus
On Oct 29, 2015 6:38 PM, "Tom Schuster"  wrote:

> Seems like this kind of died. I still would like to see this happening. Is
> this on somebody's agenda?
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Tom Schuster  wrote:
>
> > I see 3 (now 4) old pull requests that are unmerged.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Anthony Ricaud 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 16/07/15 21:26, Anthony Ricaud wrote:
> >>
> >>> Potch and I are working on a website to present Mozilla's point of view
> >>> on various web platform features. Other browsers have similar websites
> >>> [1] [2] [3]. This project has been in lingo for a while so, to get it
> >>> out the door, we're going to focus on one information: what is
> Mozilla's
> >>> opinion on features that have not been shipped yet. We see 4 possible
> >>> answers: in development, favorable, not favorable, no opinion.
> >>>
> >>> In order to get accurate data and update it regularly, we need your
> >>> help. Please go to the following etherpad and insert any information
> >>> that can help us:
> >>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/gecko-web-platform-dashboard
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your help!
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://www.chromestatus.com/features
> >>> [2] https://status.modern.ie
> >>> [3] http://www.webkit.org/status.html
> >>>
> >> Reminder: We need your help! Please submit a pull request against
> >> https://github.com/Rik/platform-status/blob/master/features.json.
> >>
> >> (I've only received one pull request since moving this JSON to Github
> :( )
> >>
> >> ___
> >> dev-platform mailing list
> >> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
> >>
> >
> >
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Collecting web platform features implementation status

[Tom Schuster]

Seems like this kind of died. I still would like to see this happening. Is
this on somebody's agenda?

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Tom Schuster  wrote:

> I see 3 (now 4) old pull requests that are unmerged.
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Anthony Ricaud  wrote:
>
>> On 16/07/15 21:26, Anthony Ricaud wrote:
>>
>>> Potch and I are working on a website to present Mozilla's point of view
>>> on various web platform features. Other browsers have similar websites
>>> [1] [2] [3]. This project has been in lingo for a while so, to get it
>>> out the door, we're going to focus on one information: what is Mozilla's
>>> opinion on features that have not been shipped yet. We see 4 possible
>>> answers: in development, favorable, not favorable, no opinion.
>>>
>>> In order to get accurate data and update it regularly, we need your
>>> help. Please go to the following etherpad and insert any information
>>> that can help us:
>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/gecko-web-platform-dashboard
>>>
>>> Thanks for your help!
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.chromestatus.com/features
>>> [2] https://status.modern.ie
>>> [3] http://www.webkit.org/status.html
>>>
>> Reminder: We need your help! Please submit a pull request against
>> https://github.com/Rik/platform-status/blob/master/features.json.
>>
>> (I've only received one pull request since moving this JSON to Github :( )
>>
>> ___
>> dev-platform mailing list
>> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>>
>
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Collecting web platform features implementation status

[Anthony Ricaud]

On 16/07/15 21:26, Anthony Ricaud wrote:

Potch and I are working on a website to present Mozilla's point of view
on various web platform features. Other browsers have similar websites
[1] [2] [3]. This project has been in lingo for a while so, to get it
out the door, we're going to focus on one information: what is Mozilla's
opinion on features that have not been shipped yet. We see 4 possible
answers: in development, favorable, not favorable, no opinion.

In order to get accurate data and update it regularly, we need your
help. Please go to the following etherpad and insert any information
that can help us:
https://etherpad.mozilla.org/gecko-web-platform-dashboard

Thanks for your help!

[1] https://www.chromestatus.com/features
[2] https://status.modern.ie
[3] http://www.webkit.org/status.html
Reminder: We need your help! Please submit a pull request against 
https://github.com/Rik/platform-status/blob/master/features.json.


(I've only received one pull request since moving this JSON to Github :( )
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Collecting web platform features implementation status

[Tom Schuster]

I see 3 (now 4) old pull requests that are unmerged.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Anthony Ricaud anth...@ricaud.me wrote:

 On 16/07/15 21:26, Anthony Ricaud wrote:

 Potch and I are working on a website to present Mozilla's point of view
 on various web platform features. Other browsers have similar websites
 [1] [2] [3]. This project has been in lingo for a while so, to get it
 out the door, we're going to focus on one information: what is Mozilla's
 opinion on features that have not been shipped yet. We see 4 possible
 answers: in development, favorable, not favorable, no opinion.

 In order to get accurate data and update it regularly, we need your
 help. Please go to the following etherpad and insert any information
 that can help us:
 https://etherpad.mozilla.org/gecko-web-platform-dashboard

 Thanks for your help!

 [1] https://www.chromestatus.com/features
 [2] https://status.modern.ie
 [3] http://www.webkit.org/status.html

 Reminder: We need your help! Please submit a pull request against
 https://github.com/Rik/platform-status/blob/master/features.json.

 (I've only received one pull request since moving this JSON to Github :( )

 ___
 dev-platform mailing list
 dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
 https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Collecting web platform features implementation status

[James Graham]

On 17/07/15 04:21, Eric Shepherd wrote:

Agreed. This is about how we feel about a spec, its content, and the
design of its API, not about if or when we will get around to
implementing it. That's also something worth capturing, but they're
not the same data points at all.


I think it's the exact opposite: people want to know what features to 
expect in forthcoming Firefox, they don't really care about our feelings 
except insofar as the latter influences the former. I think I would have 
categories like Implemented [behind a pref] in Firefox X / Under active 
development / Intend to implement / Don't intend to implement. Things 
that we don't know enough about to decide whether they're a good idea to 
implement or not can simply be left off the list; if we have nothing 
useful to say about technology X it's better to say nothing at all.

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Collecting web platform features implementation status

[Robert Kaiser]

Ehsan Akhgari schrieb:

I think we need to have a way to signal that we are not going to
implement a specific feature in addition to those categories (without
delving into the specific example here, but yes this is one of those
features.)  That sends a useful signal to other browser vendors and web
developers.  I know that for us, it would be hugely helpful to know if
vendor X is actively planning to not implement a certain feature when
weighing the pros and cons of working on something.  I can imagine the
same would be useful for other vendors, and it would be nice if we did
that.


I agree, but I think we should have a wording that says something like 
opposed to implementation or similar and not we will not implement, 
as we have seen in the past that things we didn't want to be implemented 
(that way) did actually pick up steam elsewhere and we ended up still 
implementing it - both for things that are not in line with our 
philosophy of the web, like EME, and for things where we had competing 
proposals (which we thought were the better way to go), like WebAudio.


KaiRo

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Collecting web platform features implementation status

[Anthony Ricaud]

On 16/07/15 21:26, Anthony Ricaud wrote:

Potch and I are working on a website to present Mozilla's point of view
on various web platform features. Other browsers have similar websites
[1] [2] [3]. This project has been in lingo for a while so, to get it
out the door, we're going to focus on one information: what is Mozilla's
opinion on features that have not been shipped yet. We see 4 possible
answers: in development, favorable, not favorable, no opinion.

In order to get accurate data and update it regularly, we need your
help. Please go to the following etherpad and insert any information
that can help us:
https://etherpad.mozilla.org/gecko-web-platform-dashboard

Thanks for your help!

[1] https://www.chromestatus.com/features
[2] https://status.modern.ie
[3] http://www.webkit.org/status.html
This has now moved to Github: 
https://github.com/Rik/platform-status/blob/master/features.json

You can also email me directly if pull requests are not your thing.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Collecting web platform features implementation status

[Karl Dubost]

Anthony,

Very very cool idea. 
About the features encyclopedia:

Le 17 juil. 2015 à 04:26, Anthony Ricaud anth...@ricaud.me a écrit :
 Other browsers have similar websites [2]
 [2] https://status.modern.ie

fwiw, The IE team has put their project on github. [4]
But even better they already have a format for describing the features. [5]

Maybe it would be to use something very similar if not the exact same thing, so 
someone who would like to import all browser vendors into one, end up having 
less headaches.

[4]: https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/Status
[5]: 
https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/Status/blob/production/app/static/ie-status.json

-- 
Karl Dubost, Mozilla
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/moz

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Collecting web platform features implementation status

[Anthony Ricaud]

On 16/07/15 21:51, Martin Thomson wrote:

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Anthony Ricaud anth...@ricaud.me wrote:

In order to get accurate data and update it regularly, we need your help.
Please go to the following etherpad and insert any information that can help
us:
https://etherpad.mozilla.org/gecko-web-platform-dashboard


That's a fairly clumsy input scheme.  Given the scale of this now,
would it be unreasonable to request a form?  Or maybe put it on github
and accept pull requests.
This will definitely live in Github in the future. I thought starting 
with Etherpad would make it easier to bulk contributions given the large 
number of features. But I can move it to Github tomorrow if no one objects.



Regarding in progress|favorable|not favorable|no opinion, I think
that we don't need to be opinionated about features we aren't
implementing unless we have a firm commitment not to implement the
feature.  Here I'm thinking variously about ORTC and
navigator.connect, which we could say bad things about now and end up
implementing later if we aren't careful.  Do we really want or need to
use this list as a political tool?

Developers want to know when something is coming foremost, and maybe
if.  I think that's all we need.


I think there could be value in having a clear stance on our position 
but maybe that can be provided through the description field. I have no 
preference and will implement whatever the consensus is.



___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Collecting web platform features implementation status

[Benjamin Kelly]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Anthony Ricaud anth...@ricaud.me wrote:

 Regarding in progress|favorable|not favorable|no opinion, I think
 that we don't need to be opinionated about features we aren't
 implementing unless we have a firm commitment not to implement the
 feature.  Here I'm thinking variously about ORTC and
 navigator.connect, which we could say bad things about now and end up
 implementing later if we aren't careful.  Do we really want or need to
 use this list as a political tool?

 Developers want to know when something is coming foremost, and maybe
 if.  I think that's all we need.


 I think there could be value in having a clear stance on our position but
 maybe that can be provided through the description field. I have no
 preference and will implement whatever the consensus is.


FWIW, I've sent an intent to implement for the Streams API, but I won't be
able to actually start work until Q4.  I just listed that as favorable
for now.  Not sure if we need a clearer we intend to implement this but
just haven't been able to start yet status.

Thanks for putting this together!

Ben
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Collecting web platform features implementation status

[Anthony Ricaud]

Potch and I are working on a website to present Mozilla's point of view 
on various web platform features. Other browsers have similar websites 
[1] [2] [3]. This project has been in lingo for a while so, to get it 
out the door, we're going to focus on one information: what is Mozilla's 
opinion on features that have not been shipped yet. We see 4 possible 
answers: in development, favorable, not favorable, no opinion.


In order to get accurate data and update it regularly, we need your 
help. Please go to the following etherpad and insert any information 
that can help us:

https://etherpad.mozilla.org/gecko-web-platform-dashboard

Thanks for your help!

[1] https://www.chromestatus.com/features
[2] https://status.modern.ie
[3] http://www.webkit.org/status.html
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Collecting web platform features implementation status

[Martin Thomson]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Anthony Ricaud anth...@ricaud.me wrote:
 In order to get accurate data and update it regularly, we need your help.
 Please go to the following etherpad and insert any information that can help
 us:
 https://etherpad.mozilla.org/gecko-web-platform-dashboard

That's a fairly clumsy input scheme.  Given the scale of this now,
would it be unreasonable to request a form?  Or maybe put it on github
and accept pull requests.

Regarding in progress|favorable|not favorable|no opinion, I think
that we don't need to be opinionated about features we aren't
implementing unless we have a firm commitment not to implement the
feature.  Here I'm thinking variously about ORTC and
navigator.connect, which we could say bad things about now and end up
implementing later if we aren't careful.  Do we really want or need to
use this list as a political tool?

Developers want to know when something is coming foremost, and maybe
if.  I think that's all we need.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Collecting web platform features implementation status

[Ehsan Akhgari]

On 2015-07-16 9:21 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Benjamin Kelly bke...@mozilla.com wrote:



FWIW, I've sent an intent to implement for the Streams API, but I won't be
able to actually start work until Q4.  I just listed that as favorable
for now.  Not sure if we need a clearer we intend to implement this but
just haven't been able to start yet status.


I would rather have:
  - done (Firefox X)
  - planned (with some vague time frame)
  - under investigation or no current plans

Streams seems straightforward enough.  navigator.connect would fall
into the last category.


I think we need to have a way to signal that we are not going to 
implement a specific feature in addition to those categories (without 
delving into the specific example here, but yes this is one of those 
features.)  That sends a useful signal to other browser vendors and web 
developers.  I know that for us, it would be hugely helpful to know if 
vendor X is actively planning to not implement a certain feature when 
weighing the pros and cons of working on something.  I can imagine the 
same would be useful for other vendors, and it would be nice if we did that.


Thinking about this more, I really don't see why we should try to narrow 
down the list to fewer items.  I feel like our default position on a 
random spec is no opinion, because we aren't aware of the content. 
After someone studies it a bit, we can spend a while to consider it, and 
then defer it to some point into the future (as in in support of, 
without current plans), or decide to work on it soon, or decide that we 
should not work on it, etc.  Of course, we can't get too fine grained to 
keep things comprehensible and realistic to keep updated, but a couple 
of additional categories wouldn't hurt!

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Collecting web platform features implementation status

[Eric Shepherd]

Agreed. This is about how we feel about a spec, its content, and the design of 
its API, not about if or when we will get around to implementing it. That's 
also something worth capturing, but they're not the same data points at all.

Eric Shepherd
Sr. Technical Writer
Mozilla
Blog: http://www.bitstampede.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/sheppy

 On Jul 16, 2015, at 10:26 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Thinking about this more, I really don't see why we should try to narrow down 
 the list to fewer items.  I feel like our default position on a random spec 
 is no opinion, because we aren't aware of the content
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Collecting web platform features implementation status

[Eric Rescorla]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
wrote:

 On 2015-07-16 9:21 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:

 On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Benjamin Kelly bke...@mozilla.com
 wrote:



 FWIW, I've sent an intent to implement for the Streams API, but I won't
 be
 able to actually start work until Q4.  I just listed that as favorable
 for now.  Not sure if we need a clearer we intend to implement this but
 just haven't been able to start yet status.


 I would rather have:
   - done (Firefox X)
   - planned (with some vague time frame)
   - under investigation or no current plans

 Streams seems straightforward enough.  navigator.connect would fall
 into the last category.


 I think we need to have a way to signal that we are not going to implement
 a specific feature in addition to those categories (without delving into
 the specific example here, but yes this is one of those features.)  That
 sends a useful signal to other browser vendors and web developers.  I know
 that for us, it would be hugely helpful to know if vendor X is actively
 planning to not implement a certain feature when weighing the pros and cons
 of working on something.  I can imagine the same would be useful for other
 vendors, and it would be nice if we did that.

 Thinking about this more, I really don't see why we should try to narrow
 down the list to fewer items.  I feel like our default position on a random
 spec is no opinion, because we aren't aware of the content. After someone
 studies it a bit, we can spend a while to consider it, and then defer it to
 some point into the future (as in in support of, without current plans),
 or decide to work on it soon, or decide that we should not work on it,
 etc.  Of course, we can't get too fine grained to keep things
 comprehensible and realistic to keep updated, but a couple of additional
 categories wouldn't hurt!


I don't think it's important to minimize the number of categories, but I do
think it's a
mistake to have categories which provide sentiment but not definiteness.
What I mean by that is that I'm not a big fan of favorable and
unfavorable
but rather I'd rather see planned and we do not intend to implement this
(though maybe there's a way to make that shorter).

-Ekr

___
 dev-platform mailing list
 dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
 https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Collecting web platform features implementation status

[Martin Thomson]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Benjamin Kelly bke...@mozilla.com wrote:


 FWIW, I've sent an intent to implement for the Streams API, but I won't be
 able to actually start work until Q4.  I just listed that as favorable
 for now.  Not sure if we need a clearer we intend to implement this but
 just haven't been able to start yet status.

I would rather have:
 - done (Firefox X)
 - planned (with some vague time frame)
 - under investigation or no current plans

Streams seems straightforward enough.  navigator.connect would fall
into the last category.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform