I think this is a pretty reasonable idea. Also the extension system can serve as a test bed for ideas.
- a On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe the thing to do is to have some kind of WebKit namespace for > experimental JavaScript APIs, in the same way there is > -webkit-border-radius for CSS. Something like: > > window.onIdleWebKit > > or > > window.onIdleWK > > Adam > > > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Aaron Boodman <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Mike Beltzner <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 6-May-09, at 3:30 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: >>> >>>> Anyhow, I've heard arguments both ways. Some people think we should not >>>> let the standards keep us from experimenting (and then raising the topics >>>> with the standards group later) and some people think it's better to bring >>>> up the idea and formalize all the details first. Personally, I'm more in >>>> the second camp, I don't think there's any harm in prototyping something up >>>> and using it as a vehicle for discussion. >>> >>> There isn't, as long as it clearly stays a prototype and it's developed in >>> the open with input from multiple parties. Many successful APIs have evolved >>> this way (see: geolocation). The ones that don't work as well are ones >>> driven by a single party, without consultation or invitation for >>> collaboration, as they tend to be too specific and not broadly useful. >>> >>> From my vantage point, anyway ;) >> >> I was involved in the Geolocation spec, so I'm aware of how well it >> worked. To restate what Jeremy said, this started out as a discussion >> about an extension API. That would be the easy answer, and it is >> something that vendors frequently do. It still might be a useful >> starting point. >> >> But I specifically broadened the discussion because we Chromites are >> very keen to push things down into the web platform where possible, so >> that it benefits all applications, not just Chrome extensions. Doing >> this obviously means collaboration with other vendors, and when we get >> to the point of actually proposing something, that would clearly be >> the way to go. >> >> Right now we're just discussing, though. I think it's OK to ponder >> without a W3C mandate. >> >> - a >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
