From: whatwg [] On Behalf Of

> is removal really the right thing to do, given that we have an
> implementation?

I agree this is a problematic question. I opened for the more general issue but am 
happy to have the discussion here since that hasn't gotten much replies. Do 
check out the examples listed there though. E.g. Blink is in similar situations 
with <dialog> and HTML imports.

The web seems to end up with a lot of APIs like this, where the spec ends up 
just being documentation for a single-vendor implementation. I don't really 
know what to do in these cases. If our goal in writing these specs is to 
produce an interoperable web platform, then such features seem like they 
shouldn't be part of the platform.

> as a point of practice, would seem to deter implementors from being first-to- 
> implement of something, or they might get caught like this. That’s not a good 
> incentive.

I'm not too worried about this. Implementers *should* be wary of implementing 
something alone, with no other vendors interested. Getting stuck with the only 
implementation of something is not good no matter what; having such features 
specced doesn't really make things better if you get caught in that situation.

Going forward we can be more vigilant about this, and not add things without at 
least interest from two vendors, and preferably commitment to implement.

The harder case is not about new features and who ships first, but about old 
features which only ever have one interested implementer, with no sign of that 

Reply via email to