On Apr 29, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote: > On Apr 29, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: >> I read <https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/DeprecatingFeatures>, but I'm >> still unsure how to proceed with removing webkitPostMessage and >> aligning postMessage with the spec. No one responded to my earlier >> message, so I'm inclined to just post a patch. > > Comparing your post to the recommended steps on that page (the page says the > same steps should be applied to removing only the prefixed version of a > feature): > > It looks like you did this: > Any deprecation should be sent to webkit-dev for discussion. > It doesn't look like you did any of these yet: > Any deprecation requires some data as to why the feature can be deprecated. > The goal of the data is to show that the feature is not widely used and is > not popular. The following would qualify: > usage statistics in the wild (either by instrumenting the browser or any > other means). > some discussions on the standard mailing lists underlining that the > standards' bodies don't think there is enough traction to get the feature > standardized. > some proof that there is others way to achieve the same result that are > better. > It appears to me that the the unprefixed version will be a better alternative > in this case since the websites can just use the same API on all > spec-compliant browsers if ArrayBuffer is supported in the unprefixed version. Is there evidence that authors are either not using the prefixed version or are highly willing to migrate? I ask because another part of the policy says: "The burden on the overall project needs to be evaluated as it should be the primary driver for dropping any feature. Small features that require very little maintenance may not qualify under this rule and their deprecation would need to be argued extensively." This implies to me that the burden of proof is higher for lower-maintenance-cost features (which I imagine applies to a prefixed method that also exists in unprefixed form). I'm not necessarily saying that lots of evidence is required in this case. But we can use this instance as a test case to adjust the policy. Regards, Maciej
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
