W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:15:34 +0000
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC06C4C2.8F607%tobie@fb.com>
On 6/20/12 12:05 AM, "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:

>
>[Daniel Glazman:]
>> 
>> 
>> That's also the reason why I asked to explain requestFullscreen(). It
>>can
>> sound obvious, but it's not. And in fact, we should _never_ introduce a
>>new
>> syntax, API, whatever w/o saying _what it does_ from a functional point
>>of
>> view before explaining how it works.
>> 
>To the extent possible I think specs should document some of the core
>use-cases 
>and scenarios they are derived from e.g. as an informative intro or
>appendix. 
>Extra points for covering scenarios that are explicitly out of scope for
>the 
>current version. This would be especially valuable for new specifications.
>
>I don't think people who don't live in WHATWG/W3C mailing lists and/or
>make browsers 
>for a living can read a document like this one - or, say, CORS - and hope
>to figure 
>out what problems they are/aren't trying to solve. (I'm not sure they're
>even that
>obvious for people who do....)

Can't agree more. Unpublished / hard to find use cases makes everyone's
life harder and worsens the perception authors have of spec writers and
implementors. Calling them authors doesn't help, either. :-/

--tobie
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 22:16:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:52 GMT