Document the model behind implementation traction#41
Open
dontcallmedom wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
Open
Document the model behind implementation traction#41dontcallmedom wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
dontcallmedom wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
Conversation
as experimented with in #40
Member
Author
|
also cc @tidoust since that model may be useful to discuss in the WebDX CG |
tidoust
reviewed
Mar 12, 2026
|
|
||
| We think the following signals can be attribued to these types of entities to inform how much traction a specification has or is likely to gain. These are ordered from the least significative to the most: | ||
| * browser implementers making substantive contributions to the spec | ||
| * browser distributors or browser codebase publishing their "standards position" in the spec - at this stage, Mozilla (an implementer) and WebKit (a codebase) publish standard positions |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| * browser distributors or browser codebase publishing their "standards position" in the spec - at this stage, Mozilla (an implementer) and WebKit (a codebase) publish standard positions | |
| * browser distributors or browser codebase publishing their "standards position" about the spec - at this stage, Mozilla (an implementer) and WebKit (a codebase) publish standard positions |
| * browser implementers making substantive contributions to the spec | ||
| * browser distributors or browser codebase publishing their "standards position" in the spec - at this stage, Mozilla (an implementer) and WebKit (a codebase) publish standard positions | ||
| * browser codebase being updated with an implementation of the spec | ||
| * browser distributor distributing the said implementation in a restricted fashion (behind a flag, through an origin trial, or in a pre-release version) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe not worth splitting, but a pre-release version seems to provide a stronger signal than an original trial, which may not signal much on top of interest by a few people to experiment with a proposal.
| * shipping browsers, e.g. Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari, … | ||
| * browser codebase, which for simplicity we suggest designating by the underlying rendering engine: Chromium, Gecko, WebKit, … | ||
|
|
||
| We think the following signals can be attribued to these types of entities to inform how much traction a specification has or is likely to gain. These are ordered from the least significative to the most: |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| We think the following signals can be attribued to these types of entities to inform how much traction a specification has or is likely to gain. These are ordered from the least significative to the most: | |
| We think the following signals can be attributed to these types of entities to inform how much traction a specification has or is likely to gain. These are ordered from the least significative to the most: |
ianbjacobs
reviewed
Mar 12, 2026
| * browser distributors, e.g. Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple,… | ||
| * browser implementers - the same, but also organizations known to contribute to browser implementation, e.g. Igalia, Intel,… | ||
| * shipping browsers, e.g. Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari, … | ||
| * browser codebase, which for simplicity we suggest designating by the underlying rendering engine: Chromium, Gecko, WebKit, … |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| * browser codebase, which for simplicity we suggest designating by the underlying rendering engine: Chromium, Gecko, WebKit, … | |
| * browser codebases, which for simplicity we suggest designating by the underlying rendering engine: Chromium, Gecko, WebKit, … |
ianbjacobs
reviewed
Mar 12, 2026
| We think the following signals can be attribued to these types of entities to inform how much traction a specification has or is likely to gain. These are ordered from the least significative to the most: | ||
| * browser implementers making substantive contributions to the spec | ||
| * browser distributors or browser codebase publishing their "standards position" in the spec - at this stage, Mozilla (an implementer) and WebKit (a codebase) publish standard positions | ||
| * browser codebase being updated with an implementation of the spec |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| * browser codebase being updated with an implementation of the spec | |
| * browser codebases being updated with an implementation of the spec |
ianbjacobs
reviewed
Mar 12, 2026
| * browser distributors or browser codebase publishing their "standards position" in the spec - at this stage, Mozilla (an implementer) and WebKit (a codebase) publish standard positions | ||
| * browser codebase being updated with an implementation of the spec | ||
| * browser distributor distributing the said implementation in a restricted fashion (behind a flag, through an origin trial, or in a pre-release version) | ||
| * browser distributor distributing the said implementation in their release version |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| * browser distributor distributing the said implementation in their release version | |
| * browser distributors distributing the said implementation in their release version |
ianbjacobs
reviewed
Mar 12, 2026
| * browser distributor distributing the said implementation in a restricted fashion (behind a flag, through an origin trial, or in a pre-release version) | ||
| * browser distributor distributing the said implementation in their release version | ||
|
|
||
| Given existing research about which compatibility data developers use to make decision on whether to adopt or not a web feature, we propose to document by default information matching the [WebDX Community Group core browser set](https://web-platform-dx.github.io/web-features/#how-do-features-become-part-of-baseline%3F), but leaving it possible to document additional browsers, codebases, distributors and implementers. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Given existing research about which compatibility data developers use to make decision on whether to adopt or not a web feature, we propose to document by default information matching the [WebDX Community Group core browser set](https://web-platform-dx.github.io/web-features/#how-do-features-become-part-of-baseline%3F), but leaving it possible to document additional browsers, codebases, distributors and implementers. | |
| Given existing research about which compatibility data developers use to make decisions about whether or not to adopt a web feature, we propose to start by documenting information matching the [WebDX Community Group core browser set](https://web-platform-dx.github.io/web-features/#how-do-features-become-part-of-baseline%3F), while also supporting documentation of additional browsers, codebases, distributors and implementers. |
ianbjacobs
approved these changes
Mar 12, 2026
deniak
reviewed
Mar 13, 2026
| To capture the full range of intentions in the browser ecosystem, we suggest distinguishing: | ||
| * browser distributors, e.g. Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple,… | ||
| * browser implementers - the same, but also organizations known to contribute to browser implementation, e.g. Igalia, Intel,… | ||
| * shipping browsers, e.g. Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari, … |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| * shipping browsers, e.g. Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari, … | |
| * shipping browsers - user-facing product, e.g. Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari, … |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
as experimented with in #40