whatwg.org
whatwg.org copied to clipboard
whatwg
Suggest the WICG as a way to propose new features.
The WICG can provide initial discussion of a feature and dispatch between the many available repositories on which one could file the issue.
Inspired by https://twitter.com/troglotit/status/1109577257738227712.
May help with @gsnedders' https://github.com/whatwg/participate.whatwg.org/issues/37 but doesn't fix it.
It makes more sense to me to fix this sentence to generalize whatwg/html to "the standard's issue tracker". And maybe say "if you're not sure what standard your idea impacts, use whatwg/meta. If your idea is outside the scope of WHATWG standards entirely, use WICG."
I think it's generally valuable to take things that impact WHATWG standards directly to the WHATWG community that is working on that standard, instead of to a Discourse forum which has uneven WHATWG-community participation.
I like "the standard's issue tracker" and will make that change later today. I think it's often difficult for people outside our community to know which standard their thing is supposed to affect, so I'll try to word something that suggests that either whatwg/meta or the WICG can be used to dispatch problem statements to particular specifications?
@domenic: "If your idea is outside the scope of WHATWG standards entirely, use WICG." — That's not immediately obvious if you don't spend enough time around here, IMO.
Thinking about this more, it doesn't make sense to try to guess the standard the solution is eventually going to land in, at a point where we're insisting that people should only have a problem statement and not a proposed solution.
I think in a lot of cases people do know what standard something would land in. E.g. if they're suggesting a new way of fetching things, they might know the fetch standard is the place to be. Or if they're talking about addressing a deficiency with a HTML tag, they might know HTML is the place to be. If they're concerned about a lack of capabilities of notifications, it makes sense to file the issue on whatwg/notifications. Etc.
I'd suggest that if people aren't spending enough time around WHATWG to know that their proposal belongs there, it's not a failure mode to suggest going to WICG - they'd be steered back in the end if WHATWG is more appropriate. WICG is intended to be a reasonable home for incubation of new features for anything, whether they end up in W3C or not.
I agree with @domenic that when people know where a feature would land, proposing it there (in whatwg/notifications or wherever) is probably the shortest path to success, of course.
