On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> That seems like a reasonable approach to gathering usage data > indirectly, so I'd say that type of information satisfies the policy as > written. If you wanted to take that type of approach to other prefixed > features, I doubt I would object in most cases. As I understand the policy, > it's just asking for a reasonable effort to gather data relative to what we > know about the feature. Perhaps you and other readers of the policy see it > as demanding an unreasonable level of work, but I don't think it does. > > > > Maybe it's just the tone of the wiki page. It speaks about "arguing > > extensively" and "proofs". Maybe after this discussion I'll make an > > editing pass trying to tone down the language and reflect some of this > > discussion. > > As discussed, I've updated > https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/DeprecatingFeatures to be a bit more > friendly and to incorporate some of the recent discussion we had on > this mailing list. > The intro para seems odd in that it starts talking about adding features, then it immediately says it is going to discuss how to remove a feature. Regarding "when to unprefix", I'm not sure the CSS WG has recommended removal of prefixes upon entrance of CR. It has recommended the implementation of the unprefixed flavor (of CSS syntactic features), but it has not gone any further than saying "ideally, when you implement the unprefixed version [should you drop the prefixed version]". Also, it is worth noting that these CSS WG recommendations have not necessarily been accepted, applied to, or promulgated by other W3C WGs.
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
