-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Ask people to list non-consensus dependencies in their explainers. #40
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
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Outdated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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure, what text do you think would be effective?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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Outdated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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Perhaps "Dependencies on non-stable features"? (or "early-stage features"?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me.
@@ -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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it "non-stable" or simply "unstable"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See #40 (comment). I think you'll get more features listed as "non-stable" than "unstable", and even more if you accept "non-consensus".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes please
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.