ExposureGuidelines: Difference between revisions

ExposureGuidelines (view source)

Revision as of 21:53, 7 February 2023

409 bytes removed , 7 February 2023

Add mozilla/standards-position link and make Other Browser section more clear

Bgrins

Confirmed users

66

edits

@@ Line 88: / Line 88: @@
 ''Preference'': if applicable, how can interested parties test this before it ships pref'd on by default?<br />
 ''DevTools bug'': link to a [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=devtools Developer Tools bug] coordinating work with the DevTools team to build tools for this feature.<br />
-''Other browsers'': address with "shipped" (since version X, behind what flags if any), "intent emailed" (mailing list URL), or "considering" (citation).<br />
+''Link to standards-positions discussion'': Link to an issue in [https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/ mozilla/standards-positions] about what we think about the specification.<br />
+''Other browsers'':
+* Blink: address with "shipped" (since version X, behind what flags if any), "intent emailed" (mailing list URL), or "considering" (citation).
+* WebKit: address with "shipped" (since version X, behind what flags if any), "intent emailed" (mailing list URL), or "considering" (citation).
 ''web-platform-tests'': Please link to the test suite. If any part of the feature is not tested by web-platform-tests, or if you had to write gecko-only tests for parts of the feature, please include links to one or more of:
 * A web-platform-tests issue explaining why a certain thing cannot be tested ([https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/issues/3867 example]).
@@ Line 100: / Line 103: @@
 If you're looking for extra credit, or to preempt common questions, consider adding any or all of the following (all based on existing dev-platform examples, and questions asked on dev-platform in response to intent to ship emails).
-* ''Link to standards-positions discussion'': Link to a discussion in [https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions mozilla/standards-positions] about what we think about the specification.
-** +1 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] ([http://tantek.com/ tantek.com]) 14:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
-** +1 [[User:Evilpie|Tom Schuster]] I forgot to request a standards-position before submitting an intent before.
-** +1 bgrins - And I think this requirement could make the other additions below unnecessary (security & privacy concerns, webdev use cases, example, and possibly spec stability), because those should typically be covered by an explainer and other linked resources which would be vetted in standards-positions as opposed to inside the intent-to thread.
 * ''How stable is the spec'': Note that even if it's unstable that shouldn't stop us implementing; that mostly affects shipping.  So as long as we're pretty sure that the basic set of functionality is stable, even if the actual names of the values are not, implementing makes sense.
 ** +1 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] ([http://tantek.com/ tantek.com]) 14:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)