-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
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
saschanaz
wants to merge
1
commit into
main
Choose a base branch
from
saschanaz-patch-1
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Any reason why this is an "and"?
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.
Also tagging few more people to comment on this. @dandclark @sanketj @johanneswilm
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
We don't do that anywhere in the web platform. I'm not sure why we'd start 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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 don't think adding non-normative editorial thing would require implementor interest even after this PR.