> On Oct 3, 2015, at 13:39 , Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Domenic Denicola <d...@domenic.me> wrote:
>> From: whatwg [mailto:whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org] 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 
>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/209 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.
> There is also a question about the why of the current state: is it
> just a single-vendor implementation because nobody at the other
> vendors has gotten around to implementing it or is it because they
> fundamentally object to implementing it. If there are objections, then
> it's reasonable to consider removing the feature. Otherwise, it would
> be premature to remove it IMHO.

Yes.  It wasn’t even our proposal (see 
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0436.html>) and we 
feel it answers some important cases that we can’t otherwise answer.  Some 
insights from others would be welcome.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Reply via email to