Skip to content
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

Split implementor interest and implementation bugs from PR template #215

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 4 additions & 2 deletions .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,10 +1,12 @@
Closes #????

For normative changes, the following tasks have been completed:

* [ ] At least two implementers are interested (and none opposed):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(and none opposed)

Any reason why this is an "and"?

Copy link
Contributor

@snianu snianu May 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also tagging few more people to comment on this. @dandclark @sanketj @johanneswilm

Copy link

@johanneswilm johanneswilm May 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is fine for specs that have largely been implemented and where only minor things are to be changed/added over time (like this one).
But the charter of our working groups has quite a different focus, opening for experimental ideas and new suggestions on how things could work that are being worked on collaboratively over time without there being a consensus among browser makers that this is actually the approach one ends up choosing.
In conclusion: this template could work for this repository and some others if the maintainers of those documents agree with it, but it should not automatically be applied to all our repos.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree that a template like this would be helpful, but I'm not sure if we should use "At least two implementers are interested (and none opposed)" as the condition for being able to land normative spec changes. This is a space where browsers already do not align with one another on several parts of the spec. Examples include: clipboard permission policy, web custom formats, sanitization. In the absence of interop, it has worked well in the past to at least document the behaviors of each engine in the spec. We should absolutely strive for interop with every change we make, but perhaps we need a better condition that allows for cases where browsers may have by-design differences.

Thoughts?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If engines cannot come to agreement, that is what implementation-defined is for. Which if used to the extent you suggest is more indicative of failure of the standardization process than anything else.

A specification shouldn't discuss concrete implementations. That's not what it's for.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We don't do that anywhere in the web platform. I'm not sure why we'd start here.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This has been done over the past 12-15 years, starting with changes observed in execCommand ( https://w3c.github.io/editing/docs/execCommand/ ) that were found that couldn't easily be removed.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There's a number of notes there that I don't think make sense to publish as part of a standard, but I don't think there's anything normative there that does this.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@annevk That is the work of the previous editor and I agree that the wording doesn't follow what I would expect for this kind of document. Maybe the current editor, @zcorpan, will want to change that eventually. Nevertheless, that was the beginning of documenting differences between browsers.

I don't think we would want to document differences in a "normative" way. I guess that would mean that one specific browser HAS to work in a specific way that is different from another browser.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think adding non-normative editorial thing would require implementor interest even after this PR.

* …
* …
* [ ] Modified Web platform tests (link to pull request)

Implementation commitment:
Implementation bugs are filed:

* [ ] WebKit (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=)
sanketj marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
* [ ] Chromium (https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=)
Expand Down
Loading