Signals from non-Chromium browser implementors?

[cynthia]

While revisiting https://w3ctag.github.io/design-principles/#times-and-dates for the possibility of recommending Temporal as the canonical type/format going forward (w3ctag/design-principles#101), we realized that there are no signals (or implementation commitments) from anyone other than Chrome.

Would it be possible for the group to file issues for Webkit and Gecko positions?

• https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues
• https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues

[littledan]

Note that implementation is in progress in both engines, partially landed. See tracking bugs https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=223166 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1519167 . Also note that Mozilla has explicitly marked this as worth prototyping.

In general, for TC39 proposals, we only file standards positions if we need especially broad feedback prior to Stage 3. Accepting Stage 3 itself is seen as a positive signal; this was recently expressed by Mozilla.

[cynthia]

Partially landed, presumably behind a flag? That wouldn't be good enough for us to update the principles on, since it wouldn't be practical guidance.

[littledan]

Yes, behind a flag. I agree this isn't sufficient evidence for a position; instead, I think Stage 3 itself provides that evidence, at least for Mozilla, based on the thread I linked above. Maybe the next steps would be to have this sort of meta-discussion somewhere in public with WebKit to understand their preferences on when standards-position issues are filed? @msaboff?

[littledan]

Sorry for the noise, but I found a WebKit standards positions thread which seems to imply a similar interpretation on Stage 3, that no more filings are needed.

[ptomato]

Please feel free to reopen if you disagree, but I think Stage 3 is a sufficient signal and I don't think further standards positions are needed.