On Tuesday 2013-03-05 11:36 -0800, Gavin Sharp wrote: > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Bobby Holley <bobbyhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't really have faith in our ability to "evangelize heavily" on this > > issue (outside of what we've already done) without flipping the switch. > > This is why I want to ship it, figure out which sites are broken, and only > > put in shims if we encounter breakage that can't be easily fixed by telling > > the relevant web authors to fix their site. > > "Figuring out what sites are broken" on the release channel is a very > costly process (largely in the form of frustrating our users). I don't > think it's the right tradeoff in this particular case. Getting rid of > web-exposed "Components" isn't a goal in and of itself, so we don't > need to optimize for doing it quickly at the cost of user frustration.
That said, making different implementations of the Web platform (i.e., different browsers) converge so that authors can rely on standard behavior is a goal. The pieces of that that we have control over are adding and removing things from our own implementations, influencing other implementations through standards processes, and influencing other implementations in other ways. That said, it seems like it may be worth pushing on the cases we know about before shipping to a beta/release audience. It also might be worth removing Components from nightly/aurora sooner rather than later. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
