From:  Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
Date:  31 Mar 2017 21:40:02 Hong Kong Time
Newsgroup:  news.mozilla.org/mozilla.dev.mdc
Subject:  

Re: Review of browser compat schema

NNTP-Posting-Host:  63.245.214.181

Hi all,

Stephani was obviously still early with her feedback in comparison to me.
I'm very sorry for that! I'm just too busy lately.

On 31 March 2017 at 12:14, Jean-Yves Perrier  wrote:

> Hi!
>
> We are close to a version 1.0.0 of the schema, the last step is to
> actually use it in a macro.
>
> The original links have been updated with the latest version.
>
> My answer to the feedback:
>
> On 16/03/2017 20:05, Stephanie Hobson wrote:
>
>> The spacing in your examples is pretty wonky in GitHub's webview. We
>> should
>> probably define a number of spaces to use and publish that. Maybe an
>> .editorconfig file. (4 spaces is the Mozilla Web Dev standard, I like that
>> a lot)
>>
> Fixed.
>

The :any-link example still uses tabs instead of spaces.


> Additional feedback from a live session in Toronto:
>
> On 22/03/2017 16:35, Stephanie Hobson wrote:
>
>> - support and support too confusing
>>     - change basic support to basic support
>>
> Done. "basic_support" is the only required subfeatures (it was called
> 'support' beforehands.
>

Please see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/mozilla.dev.
mdc/basic%7Csort:date/mozilla.dev.mdc/vNDUwR1x71g/BXu550X9AAAJ
,
where I asked whether 'basic support' is mandatory in regard of the
fit-content() [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/fit-content]
function (see also https://bugzil.la/1318882#c4).

- clarify names of status properties
>>     - experimental, standardzied, etc.
>>     - differences between them are too confusing
>>
> So I have:
> - kept experimental, but removed stable. It is either experiment or stable
> not both. If we find an edge case, we can reintroduce stable later, but I
> prefer not to have to deal with guaranteeing the consistency between both
> for 99% of the cases
> - renamed standardized to 'standard_track'
>

Why not just 'standard'?

And what about a feature that got removed from the standards and also from
implementations? Should it be removed completely or should we add a new
status for that case? (On MDN we differenciate this by 'deprecated' and
'obsolete'.)

Other feedback:

Didn't we decide to split the different categories and maybe even features
into different files?

Sebastian