|Google Chrome||Mozilla Firefox||Apple Safari||Spec|
|Web Bluetooth API|
|Web HID API|
|Web NFC API|
|Web USB API|
Yes, it is, but as you can see it is kind of empty, so help contribute to it. PRs are welcome.See more
There is no such conclusion to make. "Controversy" means that there isn't yet a consensus on the future of these APIs, with browser vendors having different thoughts and opinions about the design. This can be for a wide range of reasons and the intention of this page is not to pick sides and frame an API as either good or bad. The purpose of this site is purely to collect references to each browser vendors own public signals, to help the community better get a vendor independent overview of the status of these APIs. Also highlighted is their respective status on the W3C standards track.
The initial data set comes from my, @voxpelli's, personal observations of APIs with controversy around them and where hard facts has often been hard to find. Rather than just collect those references for myself, I gathered them on this page. I will happily list additional APIs that people have observed a controversy in.
Simplified one can say that there are two kinds, the Community Groups and the Working Groups.See more
No, they publish Community Group Reports and Drafts of those. In our table these will be refered to as "Community Report" and "Community Draft".See more
The W3C Working Groups publishes W3C standards and does so at different maturity levels, indicating how far and how stable the standard is.See more
Working Draft (WD), Candidate Recommendation (CR), Proposed Recommendation (PR), W3C Recommendation (REC)See more
Open issues and/or PRs about the viewpoints of browsers on controversial APIs with references to sources on that. Also come with suggestion on way to evolve this page and how to make it a more objective and reflective resource.See more