I'm fine without Shadow DOM changes, because no one yet implemented the
intended change to the spec yet,
and so it could be immature to include in a "CR". (Does CR require at
least 2 implementors exist?)
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Vincent Scheib wrote:
> I've discussed more with Xiaoqian
Important: This CFC is extended for 48 hours. Please provide comments by end of
day on Thursday 23rd June 2016.
From: Vincent Scheib [mailto:sch...@google.com]
Sent: 21 June 2016 05:09
“I've discussed more with Xiaoqian and Léonie and support a CR now with this
proposal:
Move to a CR for
From: Takayoshi Kochi [mailto:ko...@google.com]
“I'm fine without Shadow DOM changes, because no one yet implemented the
intended change to the spec yet,
and so it could be immature to include in a "CR". (Does CR require at least 2
implementors exist?)”
Yes, CR requires at least two
From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk]
Sent: 21 June 2016 11:18
Yes, CR requires at least two implementations in shipping browsers. Once
Pointer Lock is at Recc, hopefully the Shadow DOM content will be stable enough
to include in Pointer Lock next.
Correction: A CR doesn’t require 2+ im
