[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       whatwg
Subject:    Re: [whatwg] Proposal: navigator.cores
From:       Rik Cabanier <cabanier () gmail ! com>
Date:       2014-07-02 20:24:37
Message-ID: CAGN7qDCg9q3vvHmyLmME9BHR37U6tKU+K9a+3N61f3mp3pvJtw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> On 7/2/14, 3:21 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
>
>> facts = 2 implementations. I certainly didn't say anything else.
>>
>
> You said, and I quote:
>
>
>   That thread concluded with a "let's see how this feature is going to
>   be used before we commit".
>

ah, I see now that he responded to my second message. Yes, I was off on
there.


> Anyway, 2 implementations is a necessary condition for a REC, not a
> sufficient one.


This is from the WHATWG site:
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_a_specification.3F

The WHATWG doesn't have a hard requirement for 2 implementations but it
certainly is an indication that it should be more than just a wiki.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]