Confirmed users
25
edits
User:Mthomson/ExposureGuidelines2022: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
User:Mthomson/ExposureGuidelines2022 (view source)
Revision as of 01:38, 10 March 2022
, 10 March 2022→Ensure that the feature is standardized: Fix list structure
(→Intent to prototype: qualify standards body piece) |
(→Ensure that the feature is standardized: Fix list structure) |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
What you minimally need to show might differ according to the processes of the standards body: | What you minimally need to show might differ according to the processes of the standards body: | ||
* '''W3C''' - an issue raised on a working group charter (not a community group) | |||
* '''WHATWG''' - an issue raised on the appropriate standard(s) | |||
* '''IETF''' - an explicit request for adoption by a working group | |||
* '''TC39''' - a link to a proposal at stage 1 or higher | |||
* For other bodies, a request for consideration according to the procedures of the body | |||
Being able to prototype new features allows us to learn about them, but experimentation serves to inform our choices in standards bodies. Features that have not been discussed within the processes of a standards body will require extra scrutiny to ensure that it is safe to prototype. This applies especially to W3C work that is outside of community groups and individual submissions to the IETF. | Being able to prototype new features allows us to learn about them, but experimentation serves to inform our choices in standards bodies. Features that have not been discussed within the processes of a standards body will require extra scrutiny to ensure that it is safe to prototype. This applies especially to W3C work that is outside of community groups and individual submissions to the IETF. | ||
| Line 52: | Line 53: | ||
Your intent to ship should include information that shows not only that the standards body has adopted the work, but also that there is consensus that the feature is ready to be shipped. What evidence is necessary will vary, but generally this will be: | Your intent to ship should include information that shows not only that the standards body has adopted the work, but also that there is consensus that the feature is ready to be shipped. What evidence is necessary will vary, but generally this will be: | ||
* '''W3C''' - the specification is at the Candidate Recommendation [maturity level](https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#maturity-levels) or more advanced; shipping from a Working Draft or a less advanced specification requires evidence of agreement within the working group that shipping is acceptable | |||
* '''WHATWG''' - the changes have been merged into a standard; an open pull request requires additional evidence of agreement among implementers that shipping is acceptable | |||
* '''IETF''' - a working group draft that has been passed to the IESG for publication by the working group; a draft working group in an earlier state should show evidence that shipping is acceptable to the working group | |||
* '''TC39''' - the proposal is at stage 3 or higher | |||
* The product of other bodies will be assessed individually | |||
In all of these cases, try to show that there are no significant unresolved issues with a specification and that there are no objections to shipping it. Simply showing that there is support for a feature is less useful. | In all of these cases, try to show that there are no significant unresolved issues with a specification and that there are no objections to shipping it. Simply showing that there is support for a feature is less useful. | ||