What problems would this solve? =============================== Part of the standardization process is building implementations of new features. In 2015, these are often included in new clients, but require configuration to enable. When enabled, these may fully support the proposed feature, but saying support=yes or support=partial is misleading to developers Who would use this? =================== Developers looking for compatibility information. Contributors adding compatibility information. What would users see? ===================== Developers would see support=No for features that require a non-default configuration to enable. Contributors would only be allowed to select support=No. What would users do? What would happen as a result? =================================================== Developers will read the notes and learn more about the feature. Is there anything else we should know? ====================================== The discussion started on January 21st, 2015 on the mdn-drivers list . The decision was made on January 30th, 2015 . It was also decided that, when importing prefixed features from MDN, support=Yes if there is no note, and support=Partial if there is a note. Contributors can adjust the support after import if they have expertise in that feature and implementation.  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.mdn.drivers/T32k4vy-eNs  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.mdn.drivers/tzNR96C_EsM
Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/mozilla/web-platform-compat https://github.com/mozilla/web-platform-compat/commit/80c77d706a836c33ea2e0df3e99e3a350806f418 bug 1128531 - prefix + footnote => partial support If a support has both a prefix and a footnote, assume that the feature is in flux and support is partial.
Should have used "fix bug 1128531". groovecoder, can you close this bug?