-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 194
Adding missing descriptions and making them mandatory/published #747
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
|
@captainbrosset I see that you resolved conflicts, but by replacing the original descriptions. Unless you think they're bad, can you back those changes out to focus only on missing descriptions? |
|
Thinking about how to get this done with maximum velocity, I think having a single big PR is going to lead to a lot of good descriptions being held back by discussions on a few tricky cases. I would suggest splitting this into many small PRs, perhaps not one per descriptions, but at most 10 per PR so that review comments are manageable on each. Other than alphabetically, I think the easiest split would be by spec, and would do some amount of useful clustering. |
|
Closing this PR and opening multiple smaller PRs instead. |
This PR describes all the features that don't yet have a description field. Fixes #736.
This PR also makes the description field mandatory so that, going forward, we have to have descriptions.
Reviewers: most of this is taken from MDN, Can I Use, specs, and Wikipedia. My goal was to cover 100% of files, not to be 100% correct on all of them. I believe that once we have the descriptions in place, at least, we can't introduce new features without descriptions, but we can always improve the existing ones.