[webkit-dev] (no subject)

[Darin Fisher]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa at webkit.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 29, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa at webkit.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 29, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Adam Barth <abarth at webkit.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I read <https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/DeprecatingFeatures>, but I'm
>>> still unsure how to proceed with removing webkitPostMessage and
>>> aligning postMessage with the spec.  No one responded to my earlier
>>> message, so I'm inclined to just post a patch.
>>>
>>> Comparing your post to the recommended steps on that page (the page
>>> says the same steps should be applied to removing only the prefixed version
>>> of a feature):
>>>
>>> It looks like you did this:
>>>
>>>    - Any deprecation should be sent to webkit-dev for discussion.
>>>
>>> It doesn't look like you did any of these yet:
>>>
>>>    - Any deprecation requires some data as to why the feature can be
>>>    deprecated. The goal of the data is to show that the feature is not widely
>>>    used and is not popular. The following would qualify:
>>>       - usage statistics in the wild (either by instrumenting the
>>>       browser or any other means).
>>>       - some discussions on the standard mailing lists underlining that
>>>       the standards' bodies don't think there is enough traction to get the
>>>       feature standardized.
>>>       - some proof that there is others way to achieve the same result
>>>       that are better.
>>>
>>> It appears to me that the the unprefixed version will be a better
>> alternative in this case since the websites can just use the same API on
>> all spec-compliant browsers if ArrayBuffer is supported in the unprefixed
>> version.
>>
>> Is there evidence that authors are either not using the prefixed version
>> or are highly willing to migrate? I ask because another part of the policy
>> says:
>>
>> "The burden on the overall project needs to be evaluated as it should be
>> the primary driver for dropping any feature. Small features that require
>> very little maintenance may not qualify under this rule and their
>> deprecation would need to be argued extensively."
>>
>> This implies to me that the burden of proof is higher for
>> lower-maintenance-cost features (which I imagine applies to a prefixed
>> method that also exists in unprefixed form).
>>
>>  I'm not necessarily saying that lots of evidence is required in this
>> case. But we can use this instance as a test case to adjust the policy.
>>
>
> I'm actually curious as to how the session participants reached
> this consensus (probably on a separate thread). It seems like the bar
> shouldn't too high for removing prefixed APIs when they are unprefixed
> equivalents because I'm certain web developers want to use the ones that
> work on all browsers instead of just on WebKit.
>
>
The discussion went like this:

It is good to remove vendor prefixed features in favor of their
standardized, unprefixed forms.

However, the process for removing a vendor prefixed feature is the same as
the process for removing any feature.  In both cases, we care about the
impact to users of WebKit-based products.  The vendor prefix just provides
motivation for wanting to remove a feature.  It doesn't necessarily make it
any easier to remove a feature.

Just as we announce feature addition on webkit-dev, I think it is a good
idea to announce feature removal on webkit-dev.

-- If we have data to indicate that a feature is nearly unused, then
removing the feature straight-away seems good.  We can learn quickly if we
made a mistake.

-- If we have data to indicate that a feature is somewhat used, then we can
still deprecate it, but we probably need to take our time, complain in the
JS console about deprecated API usage for some time, and then remove the
feature from trunk and see who complains.

-- If we have data to indicate that a feature is highly used, then perhaps
we are stuck with the feature.  We may have some hard discussions here if
someone is truly motivated to remove such a feature.

-Darin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20120429/18bfece9/attachment.html>