W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

Re: [css3-color] #rrggbbaa annotation, do we need to change the process?

From: Alberto Lepe <dev@alepe.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:24:16 +0900
Message-ID: <z2g8c9249b71004090524uec823845xd4a226e6cf181004@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Eduard Pascual <herenvardo@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Alberto Lepe <dev@alepe.com> wrote:
>> As a newcomer, I found all these comments really useful to understand
>> how W3C works in general.
> That means that my idea of gathering this stuff in a FAQ might indeed
> be useful ^^.
>

I follow your idea about the FAQ. A basic "can do" and "can't do"
could be enough to start with it. If you are going to move ahead with
the idea and you need some help, I would be glad to help.

>
>> Could it be possible to divide module stages into chapter stages? This
>> is,  that each chapter (inside each module) could have its own
>> recommendation level?
> This is a midpoint between the current Modularization approach, and
> the independent feature stages I suggested.
> Yet still, modularization itself is a midpoint between the old
> monolithic approach and more fine-grained suggestions. I'm quite
> convinced the WG put serious thought and work on Modularization before
> CSS3 was split into its current modules, so it seems obvious that this
> approach represents the level of break-down the group considered most
> optimal, keeping in mind a wide range of factors.
>

Actually giving a second thought, your idea of "independent feature"
is better than the "per chapter" approach as any modification/addition
to the standards would result in a less painful process.

Thank you for all your explanations and for believing that my English
is not that bad :)
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 12:24:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:26 GMT