Update review of monitored specs #1477
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -676,6 +676,7 @@ | |
| }, | ||
| "https://wicg.github.io/datacue/", | ||
| "https://wicg.github.io/deprecation-reporting/", | ||
| "https://wicg.github.io/digital-credentials/", | ||
| "https://wicg.github.io/digital-goods/", | ||
| "https://wicg.github.io/digital-identities/", | ||
| "https://wicg.github.io/direct-sockets/", | ||
|
|
@@ -725,6 +726,7 @@ | |
| "shortname": "speculation-rules" | ||
| }, | ||
| "https://wicg.github.io/netinfo/", | ||
| "https://wicg.github.io/observable/", | ||
| "https://wicg.github.io/overscroll-scrollend-events/", | ||
| "https://wicg.github.io/page-lifecycle/", | ||
| "https://wicg.github.io/performance-measure-memory/", | ||
|
|
@@ -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.
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
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 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. |
||
| "nightly": { | ||
| "sourcePath": "Overview.bs" | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-glossary/", | ||
| "categories": [ | ||
|
|
||
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.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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:
Arguments against adding it to the list:
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I find the pro arguments convincing, so let's add it and continue the criteria discussion separately
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.
Criteria discussion in #1481