Subject: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] maintaining a list of supported browsers and HTML5 versions

From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:14:03 -0700

Hello Tools Dev,

The RFC Format Design Team recently agreed that the following really
doesn't fit in the HTML requirements draft, as that list really would be
a constantly moving target:

   The HTML has to render correctly on the following:

   o  the latest released versions of Chrome, Firefox, and IE running on
      Windows 8 in November 2013

   o  the latest released versions of Chrome, Firefox, and Safari
      running on Mac OS X 10.9 in November 2013

   o  the latest released versions of Chrome and Safari running on iOS 7
      in November 2013

   o  the latest released versions of Chrome and Firefox running on
      Ubuntu 13.10 in November 2013

   o  the latest released versions of Chrome and Firefox running on
      Android 4.1 in November 2013

Finding the correct citation for HTML5 also seemed to be a moving
target, with the browsers being the ones that actually determine which
flavor of HTML5 they feel like following this week.

So, rather than have this in draft-hildebrand-html-rfc or its
successors, it should go ... somewhere else.  The Format Design Team
suggested that the list of supported browsers, etc, live on the RFC
Editor website.  The RSE would make the official call as to what goes on
that list.  That's fine in principle, but it is a new thing.  Before I
go further with this, my questions for the Tools Team are: does the IETF
already have this kind of list somewhere, perhaps in saying "here's the
minimal list of the browsers ietf.org MUST run on"?   Does anyone here
have objections to such a list living on the RFC Editor website to apply
to new RFCs?  Or should the list remain purely in the realm of SoWs and
RFPs?

Thanks!
Heather

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:51:35 +0200

On 2014-09-29 20:14, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello Tools Dev,
>

Chrome on iOS is just a different UI for Safari; it shouldn't be 
mentioned here.

> flavor of HTML5 they feel like following this week.

Well, what browsers do is a moving target by definition. We need to 
decide what kind of stability we require here.

> So, rather than have this in draft-hildebrand-html-rfc or its

I believe it's a sign that draft-hildebrand-html-rfc is trying to 
micro-manage things it shouldn't.

> to new RFCs?  Or should the list remain purely in the realm of SoWs and

I assume you mean: "apply to RFCs in the new format we're working on"?

> RFPs?

I have no objections, but then, I'm not sure a list like that is needed 
at all.
Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 04:27:56 -0700

mentioned here.

For now, take this as an example list.  I'm trying to figure out if
something like it needs to be mentioned anywhere at all.

Well, yes, that's why this is coming out of that draft.

> I assume you mean: "apply to RFCs in the new format we're working on"?

Yes.

>
>> RFPs?
>
> I have no objections, but then, I'm not sure a list like that is
needed at all.

You said "We need to decide what kind of stability we require here." 
That's rather exactly what I'm looking for, and hoping that you and
others on this list can help me with suitable language.

- -Heather