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

Re: [w3c process] Progressing from ED (Was: Re: [css3-images] Resolving on gradient issues)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 18:14:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCioocufE5EHYY-QV4W7Di50BYsEriDuU1B42xSePU+qA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net> wrote:
> On 03/08/2011 17:23, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> 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.
> FWIW I agree with Bjoern here.  The classification of any W3C spec is
> actually pretty important to people who don't have the luxury of being able
> to dedicate their whole working week to W3C matters.  An LC is the stage
> where interested external parties (usually with limited resources) who don't
> actually plan on participating in /defining/ the spec often get involved,
> and so it can be discourteous to present a document as LC when really it's
> come straight from ED and hasn't yet had wider review as a WD and hence is
> probably not as solid as it should be.  These matters can sometimes seem
> tedious and delay-inducing, but in fact they do matter!

As I said in the thread, that's totally fine.  My remark was meant
merely to state my intention (I now explicitly want to advance the
spec, rather than stay at WD and stew the ideas further).  It was not
intended to make any particular statement about exactly what I'm going
to do process-wise.

Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 01:15:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:48 UTC