Requirements to count as an implementer for web specs

[stelar7]

For most proposals, there is a requirement that At least two implementers are interested (and none opposed)

Who counts as "implementers" for this? and what are the requirements to join as an implementer?

This is also a petition for Ladybird to be counted as such 🙂

[domenic]

The intent, which should be made more explicit, is to use the definition of "Qualifying Entity" at https://whatwg.org/sg-agreement#5-definitions .

[sideshowbarker]

The intent, which should be made more explicit, is to use the definition of "Qualifying Entity" at whatwg.org/sg-agreement#5-definitions .

Seems like we might need to revisit that definition anyway, since our current wording for it limits it to “end-to-end integrated web browser platform engines”, but Deno does not meet that definition, and I think we’re now considering Deno among the recognized set of implementors.

(Incidentally, I have no idea what we mean there by either “end-to-end” or “integrated” — but I can only guess that somebody got that wording added as a means for trying to exclude some type/class of existing or imagined ”web browser platform engine” that’s somehow not “end-to-end” or “integrated”. But I also have no idea if we know of any actual examples of something in that class.)

For the sake of comparison, it also seems worth noting here that in the case of W3C specs, there is no similar policy for limiting qualifying implementations. So for W3C specs, Ladybird would/does already qualify as a recognized implementation — and so does Servo, and so does Flow.

I recognize it’s reasonable for the policy for WHATWG specs to impose a policy stricter limits. It’s just that people shouldn’t assume that policy and its specific limits are somehow universal across all organizations where we’re developing specs for the platform.

[domenic]

I think we’re now considering Deno among the recognized set of implementors.

We are not. We are filing bugs on them, but not counting them as "interested implementor" for the purposes of the working mode.

[sideshowbarker]

We talked about this in on this week’s WHATNOT call, and the best articulation that came up of the rationale for the current requirements was “web compat”.

I won’t try to further expand on what “web compat” has come to mean when it’s said, except to say that for an engine to factor into considerations about web compat, the engine needs to have been deployed to a relatively large number of users.

And I mean not just in the context of WHATWG discussions, but in discussions anywhere where we’re talking about “web compat” as a consideration.

[annevk]

Let me add though that for many proposals it's rather straightforward to find implementer interest. Often the most time-consuming aspect is working out all the details, ensuring there is sufficient test coverage, etc.

For instance, there is implementer and web developer interest in exposing more loading state through promises, but it's not high enough on the priority list of any implementer to actually make it happen and work out a detailed proposal.