-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 132
Simplified support status: do prefixes and aliases count? #86
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
If developers want to know if the standard feature is supported, then imo
|
@ddbeck this issue has been answer with code, right? |
I think only the first item is answered with code (in the forthcoming baseline calculation code, that is). The latter two are asking more for group definition guidelines: should we include blessed-by-specification prefixes into the list of things that make up a feature? FWIW, #503 implies that yes we should. |
On standardized prefixes, I think we should treat them like any alias to the most favored spelling, like Let's treat that as any alias and ignore it for the purposes of Baseline, effectively saying that support with a prefix only is a serious caveat. Prefixed things that are listed as separate entries in BCD are trickier. A complete list: api.DataTransferItem.webkitGetAsEntry I haven't checked which are standardized, if any, but if some are with prefix and all, then I think they could also be added to web-features. The most relevant case is |
I don't think we need any change here. We already ignore prefix and alt name data from BCD, so a feature that requires a prefix cannot be Baseline. But we do have features that include "prefixed" BCD entries like api.File.webkitRelativePath. That's not a problem because the prefix is part of the name, and we get the right behavior. |
(We might want to consider re-titling this to capture more broadly the rules for simplifying support statuses, but I'm starting with some narrow questions now.)
Some questions by way of https://github.com/web-platform-dx/feature-set/pull/78/files#r1129450273:
Should vendor prefixes count toward satisfying a definition of widely supported? For instance, given a feature group containing
alfa-property
, should support for-webkit-alfa-property
contribute toward satisfying support foralfa-property
and the group as a whole?If no (as suggested by @foolip), then how might we go about annotating the group to show that a workaround is available?
Should vendor prefixes ever be required for a definition of widely supported? For instance, given some feature group that contains
bravoInterface
, should the feature group ever require support forWebKitBravoInterface
to satisfy support for the group as a whole?An example of this would be
WebKitCSSMatrix
, which is specified as an alias toDOMMatrix
. Conformant implementations should implement the alias, but do we care?Should aliases ever be required for a definition of widely supported? For instance, given some feature group that contains
charlie-property
, should the feature group ever require support forlegacy-charlie-property
to satisfy support for the group as a whole?Examples include the legacy gap properties (
grid-column-gap
,grid-row-gap
,grid-gap
), which are now specified as aliases to the contemporary standard properties.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: