RE: Group status...

Yep, you've done a very good work of spreading our ideas to key people, Thank you for all that 'invisible' work.
 
It isn't entirely clear to me which specific questions you were asked to answer. However, if the W3C ask about the group priorities, my personal thoughts would be:
 
- Getting more CSSOM specifications implemented to allow harnessing the power of the CSS and Layout engines.
- Getting the ES Proxy spec implemented to enable a full emulation of WebIDL objects.
- Getting the shadow dom & web components spec implemented to allow more HTML/DOM-related polyfills.
 
Regarding the 'transition to legit working groups' statement, I'm not against transforming this WG in an official working group but I guess it will be difficult to have weekly telcons for most of us. I wonder if that's a requirement.
 
However, if it gives this group a legitimacy to ask to assist as observer to some other groups (or, to the contrary, people working inside some other working groups sending us weekly reports), why not? Those people could probably have as role to evaluate the extensibility of features and make comments about that without interfering with the general working of those groups (as stated in our scope declaration).
 
It would also feed the group with fresh content and possibilities to act on active discussions (instead of opening discussions that some group may not be interested to have right at the time we open them).
 
 
________________________________
> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 11:41:44 -0400
> From: bkardell@gmail.com
> To: public-nextweb@w3.org
> Subject: Group status...
>
>
> I know it is very early days for this group, i have transitioned most
> of my efforts recently toward expanding membership to folks we would
> need to work closely with in order to advance an idea to a relevant
> committee or wg or help establish and prioritize pieces of the platform
> that make something difficult or even impossible to prollyfill with any
> level of pairity, encouraging folks like Yehuda and Dave Herman to
> share additional discussions and related ideas that have occurred
> offlist, etc.
>
> The other day, as chair I received a W3C questionnaire from a group
> reviewing cgs and setting priorities going forward/which cgs should
> transition to legit w3c working groups, etc.
>
> I think this question should be posed to you all as some belong to
> vendors, foundations, committees where that is a really important bit.
>
> So... Comments?

Received on Saturday, 27 April 2013 18:29:02 UTC