W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2011

RE: [css3-images] Resolving on gradient issues

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 22:43:58 +0000
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F017829314211@TK5EX14MBXC296.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Bjoern Hoehrmann:]
> 
> * Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >> Always ? Really ? I don't recall seeing an ED with a lot of
> >> substantive changes going straight to LC. (To be clear, I'm not
> >> saying the process prevents you from doing it but it seems peculiar
> >> given the nature of the changes and the controversy some of them have
> >> generated).
> >
> >Can we please not have this discussion?  My intention is to publish an
> >LC draft.  If that involves going through a WD first, whatever.
> >That's irrelevant.  The point is, I'm done with Images 3, and would
> >like to cut it off and kick it further up the process chain.
> 
> The best practise is to publish a normal working draft that you think
> addresses all known issues, making sure those issues raised have been
> formally addressed, and then ensure that draft is reviewed by group
> members interested in implementing what's specified plus other groups that
> may be interested, in the case here SVG (due to image-rendering), WAI (are
> there accessibility issues with `element()`? the draft does not seem to
> mention any) and HTML (is it well-defined how `element()` image data is
> generated, for instance, do you render the options list of a select form
> control if the user expands it?) would be obvious.
> 
> Having records of people and groups noting they reviewed the document and
> found no issues with it is best.
> 
> It's common practise these days to publish a Last Call the moment the
> draft looks vaguely feature-complete and then expect everybody to re- view
> it. That tends to lead to unpredictable schedules, repeated Last Calls,
> and annoyed reviewers who then review less, in my experience so I would
> indeed recommend following the best practise. Procedurally you can do
> whatever you want as there is no notable process enforcement.

Thanks! Avoiding multiple LCs was my main concern; we've been through several
breaking changes and some of them remain controversial, including in the 
latest ED (e.g. the linear-gradient keyword issue).

Given the module's recent volatility and our experience implementing it I 
simply cannot exclude the possibility that we will find another set of new 
issues with the next draft, however stable Tab means it to be. A compromise 
here may also be a longer review period. 

> 
> (As an aside, the draft should include an example with sample render- ing
> of using `element()` to reference an inline element that wraps in the
> middle, and it should probably say something about elements that the
> margin properties do not apply to.)
> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2011 22:44:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:43 GMT