tidoust
commented
5 months ago Thanks for the definition. This made me wonder whether there's enough data in browser-specs already to compute the answer, and whether we would need to override the answer manually in some cases.
On top of status, which currently tries to convey what the spec says its status is, browser-specs has the notion of standing, which is broader than what you're looking at here, and which is used to identify discontinued specs, and to distinguish between specs that are merely unofficial at this stage from specs that are "one step further" (adopted by some group, better-defined scope).
There are 602 specs in browser-specs, of which 572 are in good standing.
Converting the definition to a function that can apply to browser-spec entries, I end up with (note I added AOM and FIDO specs):
function isStandardTrack(spec) {
if (spec.standing !== 'good') {
// Spec is in a pending state or has been discontinued
return false;
}
if (spec.organization === 'W3C') {
if (spec.forkOf && spec.shortname.startsWith('wasm-')) {
// Note: browser-specs only contains phase 3+ WASM specs
// Note: a bunch of phase 3+ WASM specs are not in browser-specs yet!
return true;
}
else {
return spec.release && [
'First Public Working Draft',
'Working Draft',
'Candidate Recommendation Draft',
'Candidate Recommendation Snapshot',
'Proposed Recommendation',
'Recommendation',
'Proposed Edited Recommendation',
'Draft Registry',
'Registry'
].includes(spec.release.status);
}
}
else if (spec.organization === 'IETF') {
return [
'Proposed Standard',
'Draft Standard',
'Internet Standard'
].includes(spec.nightly.status);
}
else if (spec.organization === 'Khronos Group') {
// Note: all Khronos Group specs have an "Editor's Draft" status for now.
return true;
}
else if (spec.organization === 'WHATWG') {
return true;
}
else if (spec.organization === 'Alliance for Open Media') {
// Note: status of AOM specs is either "Draft Deliverable" or
// "Final Deliverable".
return true;
}
else if (spec.organization === 'Ecma International') {
// Note: browser-specs only contains stage 3+ TC39 specs
// Note: all TC39 specs have an "Editor's Draft" status for now
return true;
}
else if (spec.organization === 'FIDO Alliance') {
// Note: just one spec in browser-specs for now
return true;
}
else {
return false;
}
}Applied to the 572 specs in browser-specs that are in good standing, I end up with 406 standard specs and 166 non-standard specs. See lists below. Do they look correct?
A few entries in the non-standard list are perhaps worth highlighting:
- Some MSE and WebCodecs registration specs are on the Note track. That's clumsy but that's correct.
requestVideoFrameCallbackships in all browsers save Firefox, and Mozilla's position about the spec is positive. And yet it is "only" a WICG incubation, so not standard track. [Edit: Same thing for the Compression Streams, which ships in all core browsers. There may be other examples.]- Same thing for the Speech API, whereas synthesis part ships across browsers.
- Some specs have been adopted by Working Groups, will get published on the standard track, but only exist as Editor's Draft for the time being. New levels of CSS specs such as css-shapes-2 for instance.
dontcallmedom
foolip
Elchi3
Feature request from https://github.com/web-platform-dx/web-features/issues/484.
I would like to answer the question "is it standards track" for every feature in web-features, and @tidoust suggested we might be able to improve the
statusfield here in browser-specs to handle that.The definition we had in the Interop 2024 proposal template was a good start:
In https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/issues/589 we also concluded that for WebAssembly, Phase 3+ was a reasonable bar.
Zooming out, I think we want to pick a point in the process for each standards organization that crosses the bar of multi-vendor interest. Most processes aren't defined in those terms, but in practice there is roughly such a point.