W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2008

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2008-09-17

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:41:45 +0200
Message-ID: <48FCED09.8020708@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
Cc: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>

Christoph Päper wrote:

> I honestly cannot believe it! I'm really disappointed and not because it 
> was my proposal. Is the CSS 3 _REC_ really considered just another draft 
> of the CSS 4 REC?
> 
> Text structure may of course seem unimportant compared to the technical 
> correctness of the prose, but if you want people other than the 
> specificators to read the specifications you should make them readable.
> 
> It's all about making the spec understandable. Nobody except the editors 
> has read it often enough to somehow rely on the evolutional structure or 
> section numbers. Even if, "it's always been this way, people are used to 
> it" never is a valid argument when it's the sole reason to keep something.
> 
> This is a precedent. Other modules are structured just as badly for the 
> same, historic reasons -- and when you don't change it as soon as you 
> can you probably never will.

Ainsi soit-il.

First, it's not as if the spec was NOT understandable kept as is. Your
change proposal is a clarification, a better structure, but it's not
a mandatory change that is absolutely required to make the spec even
readable. Let's be serious a minute here, please.

Second, the proposed changes are enough reorganizing the document to
trigger necessary adaptations to some portions of the prose. We _don't_
want to run into that at this point of this spec's REC track.

The CSS Working Group is just like any other organization, it has
priorities. Reorg'ing this spec is a too low priority on our radar at
this time and would trigger too many changes.

</Daniel>
--
W3C CSS WG, Co-Chair
Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 20:42:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:15 GMT