On 6/20/12 12:05 AM, "Sylvain Galineau" <sylva...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >[Daniel Glazman:] >> >> >> That's also the reason why I asked to explain requestFullscreen(). It >>can >> sound obvious, but it's not. And in fact, we should _never_ introduce a >>new >> syntax, API, whatever w/o saying _what it does_ from a functional point >>of >> view before explaining how it works. >> >To the extent possible I think specs should document some of the core >use-cases >and scenarios they are derived from e.g. as an informative intro or >appendix. >Extra points for covering scenarios that are explicitly out of scope for >the >current version. This would be especially valuable for new specifications. > >I don't think people who don't live in WHATWG/W3C mailing lists and/or >make browsers >for a living can read a document like this one - or, say, CORS - and hope >to figure >out what problems they are/aren't trying to solve. (I'm not sure they're >even that >obvious for people who do....) Can't agree more. Unpublished / hard to find use cases makes everyone's life harder and worsens the perception authors have of spec writers and implementors. Calling them authors doesn't help, either. :-/ --tobie