W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > October 2012

RE: Inclusion of overflowScrolling in coremob specification

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:59:21 +0000
To: Robert Shilston <robert.shilston@ft.com>
CC: Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <59A39E87EA9F964A836299497B686C351003E531@WABOTH9MSGUSR8D.ITServices.sbc.com>

Do you mean that polyfills or other needed support libraries should be referenced informatively in the CoreMob specs? I had suggested that earlier but got some pretty strong pushback. Or perhaps you meant that bugs need to be filed against the referenced specs?

Bryan Sullivan


I think that polyfills show need, and that spec writers should review them and see where the spec needs to evolve.  I'm not sure if that's the CoreMob spec, or other specs that CoreMob has referenced.  I was trying to argue that "I just don't want to see useless cruft added to CSS" needs to be balanced with ensuring that browsers offer a great experience for users, and that if developers need features, then they ought to be considered for addition and whilst the spec gets longer it shouldn't be considered cruft.

OK, I agree with your general point. I am interested to see where the existence of these libraries shows a need for spec enhancements (and how/where that gets initiated).
Bryan Sullivan
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 15:00:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:48 UTC