- From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:49:49 -0400
- To: ext Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: ext Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>, Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, "Christiansen Kenneth (EXT-INdT/Recife)" <kenneth.christiansen@indt.org.br>, "Gombos Laszlo.1 (Nokia-D/Boston)" <laszlo.1.gombos@nokia.com>, public-hypertext-cg <public-hypertext-cg@w3.org>
Hi Bert, All, On Apr 15, 2010, at 5:20 AM, ext Bert Bos wrote: > On Tuesday 13 April 2010 19:46:22 Arthur Barstow wrote: > >> Daniel, Peter, Bert, Chris - if you have any thoughts on the Task >> Force question, please let us know. I'm OK with keeping things simple >> and not creating a TF. > > In principle, I'd like to keep CSS focused on a single domain, > viz., the > layout of hypertext documents, because trying to cater to too may > different applications is likely to create a language/model that is > inconsistent and difficult to learn; and, moreover, it risks > overloading the CSS WG. That said, if the requirements of widgets can > be met by the addition of a keyword or a parameter to functions that > the CSS OM already needs anyway, there is probably little harm. > > For the rest, I'd say it depends on Anne. He is driving the spec > and as > long as he thinks he can write the spec in a reasonable time (possibly > with the help of a co-editor from WebApps) and put the right issues to > discuss in front of the CSS WG, there should be no problem. > > I would prefer that to a task force. The amount of work a task force > would save the WGs seems small, and less than the extra work it causes > in terms of coordination. I agree avoiding the overhead of a task force would be good. Anne indicated in [1] a willingness to address our requirements in matchMedium and WebApps now must provide those requirements. > What would be the dependencies of this spec once the new parameters > are > added, and what the desired timeline? For the CSS WG, the CSSOM View > module is currently in the "low priority" category, which means we may > publish working drafts in this charter period, but we didn't foresee a > CR. It's not forbidden, but if we then fail to progress on > higher-priority items, it will raise questions. Re dependencies, AFAIK, currently, none of WebApps' specs have a dependency on CSSOM. Re desired timeline, that's a good question. I will discuss this with the group and report back. > (As a technical aside, I must say that the proposed extension as > formulated now, viz., a callback parameter to a test function, looks > strange to me. I'd say a function should *either* be a test function > *or* a function that registers a callback, but not both at the same > time. But it might well be that I misunderstood the proposal.) FYI, Anne suggested all technical discussions for CSSOM be done on www-style and that message has been communicated to WebApps. > Peter, Daniel, maybe this is something for the next CSS telcon, > assuming > Anne is there? Please notify me if there are additional process-related issues related to this topic. -Art Barstow [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/ 0105.html > >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/ >> 0105.html > > > > Bert > -- > Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/ > http://www.w3.org/people/bos W3C/ERCIM > bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 > +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 11:51:07 UTC