Update review of monitored specs #1477
Conversation
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
- Digital Credentials: active development, may transition to a WG soon - Observable API: active development (though Chromium only) - HTML Ruby Extensions: development resumes in HTML WG
- DBSC: in development in Chrome but no entry in Chromestatus - Capture all screens: essentially not for general browsers Also dropped entries now added to specs.json
|
I added 3 specs to the list and updated a couple of review comments, @dontcallmedom PTAL. |
| @@ -1276,6 +1278,12 @@ | |||
| "https://www.w3.org/TR/html-aam-1.0/", | |||
| "https://www.w3.org/TR/html-aria/", | |||
| "https://www.w3.org/TR/html-media-capture/", | |||
| { | |||
| "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/html-ruby-extensions/", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm... This is in practice a delta spec of the HTML spec (although not intended to serve as a next iteration of it); should this be represented somehow?
In particular, it adds 2 HTML elements that I suspect we want to detect.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is in practice a delta spec of the HTML spec (although not intended to serve as a next iteration of it); should this be represented somehow?
I was thinking we would handle that as we handle TC39 proposals: at some point in the future, we flag the entry as discontinued and obsoleted by HTML. It's not easy to flag the spec as being a "delta" of "HTML" (code would get confused by a seriesPrevious property in specs.json in particular)
In particular, it adds 2 HTML elements that I suspect we want to detect.
They should end up being detected. But the ones that already exist in HTML will be detected as well. We're going to end up with duplicates in extracts, including duplicates of exported definitions such as the ruby element, which may be more problematic for Bikeshed. Nothing that should be blocking though?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not blocking for sure; the reason I'm mentioning it is in case we had an annotation here that would help with that conflict down the line.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tracked in #1488. In the meantime, I'll warm up for a little Webref patching exercise.
| @@ -725,6 +726,7 @@ | |||
| "shortname": "speculation-rules" | |||
| }, | |||
| "https://wicg.github.io/netinfo/", | |||
| "https://wicg.github.io/observable/", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it's not shipping anywhere yet though? (although somehow WPT shows support in Cr 130?)
not opposed to adding it, but this changes a bit our current expectations…
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But then "shipping in a browser" is not in our list of criteria. For this and a few other entries under incubation, I don't really know how to evaluate readiness to enter the list. In this case, "arguments" in favor of adding it to the list:
- The spec has grown significantly and defines a good chunk of Web IDL, which I thought could be worth analyzing early on.
- Standard positions (Observable mozilla/standards-positions#945 and Observable WebKit/standards-positions#292) remain neutral for now, but acknowledge user demand.
- Tests in WPT seem a good sign of commitment
Arguments against adding it to the list:
- No involvement from other browser engines for now
- Tests in WPT are flagged as "tentative"
- No documentation on MDN
Essentially, I've been flipping a coin. I'm happy to flip it again and keep it in the monitor list.
I would find it useful to review and clarify the spec selection criteria in light of accumulated experience. I'll track that in a separate issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I find the pro arguments convincing, so let's add it and continue the criteria discussion separately
Yes. I tested the changes locally but that's not a good workflow. I updated the PR directly because going through the issue route would have created merge conflicts (adding the spec would drop the entry from A better workflow could perhaps be:
|
The digital-credentials repo was added to the monitor list back in January (#1174). The digital-identities spec was added shortly afterwards (#1204), but was using a different repository at the time. Then digital-identities became digital-credentials, but we missed that. Instead we recently reviewed the list of monitored specs and decided to add digital-credentials (#1477). That means we have twice the same spec in the list. This update drops the digital-identities entry and adds the name as a former name of digital-credentials, since that's the name under which the spec is now progressing.
The digital-credentials repo was added to the monitor list back in January (#1174). The digital-identities spec was added shortly afterwards (#1204), but was using a different repository at the time. Then digital-identities became digital-credentials, but we missed that. Instead we recently reviewed the list of monitored specs and decided to add digital-credentials (#1477). That means we have twice the same spec in the list. This update drops the digital-identities entry and adds the name as a former name of digital-credentials, since that's the name under which the spec is now progressing.
The following specs have been updated since the last review: