Ask people to list non-consensus dependencies in their explainers. #40
Conversation
explainers/template.md
Outdated
| ## Non-consensus dependencies | ||
|
|
||
| [If your proposed solution depends on any other features that haven't been either implemented by | ||
| multiple browser engines or adopted by a standards working group, list them here.] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Lots of people new to the standards world might think an incubation venue like WICG counts as "a standards working group"; it may be worth clarifying that here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, what text do you think would be effective?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added "(that is, not just a W3C community group)".
explainers/template.md
Outdated
| @@ -99,6 +99,11 @@ in which case you should link to any active discussion threads.] | |||
|
|
|||
| [etc.] | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Non-consensus dependencies | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I might suggest something like "work-in-progress" instead of non-consensus. Another common pattern is that other implementations simply don't seem interested enough to provide a position.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm happy with whichever wording the TAG prefers. Both options seem to include both "don't have time" and "opposed" dependencies, and I think that's correct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps "Dependencies on non-stable features"? (or "early-stage features"?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Non-stable" and "early-stage" aren't great descriptions of some APIs like Web Bluetooth that ought to appear in this list. But I took "Dependencies on non-stable features" anyway.
| @@ -99,6 +99,12 @@ in which case you should link to any active discussion threads.] | |||
|
|
|||
| [etc.] | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Dependencies on non-stable features | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it "non-stable" or simply "unstable"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See #40 (comment). I think you'll get more features listed as "non-stable" than "unstable", and even more if you accept "non-consensus".
Both @hober and @torgo have complained about Chromium shipping features that depend on other non-consensus features. While Chromium's likely to keep doing this, we can pretty easily list the non-consensus dependencies in the explainer so that y'all don't have to re-discover them. The other benefit of listing these is that it could prompt us to find solutions that don't have as many dependencies, but I couldn't find a place in this repository to cleanly fit in that explanation. Suggestions are welcome.