RE: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions Telecon 201-08-17

It's a reasonable concern, though I think it really depends on how we
define what the feature is. I think one can have, say, border-radius as
a stable feature while multiple backgrounds are being worked on as they
are orthogonal. Or box-shadow vs. border-radius. As long as the 'CR boundary'
is set in the right place, it needn't be harmful to the spec or authors.

"...than a document which change every week and that mix proposals, drafts 
and accepted properties" That pretty much describes HTML5 over the past few
years. Do authors hate it for being that way ?

[Francois REMY:]
> 
> I don't know about the specifics but even if features can progress on
> their own, web authors will find it easier to have a recommendation
> document about a set of features rather than a document which change every
> week and that mix proposals, drafts and accepted properties. Just a
> thought.
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Sylvain Galineau
> Envoye le : jeudi 18 aout 2011 06:04
> A : fantasai; www-style@w3.org
> Objet : RE: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions Telecon 201-08-17
> 
> 
> [fantasai:]
> >    - RESOLVED: Put ltr | rtl keywords back into image(), mark as at-
> risk.
> ...
> > <fantasai> Florian, prefixes are dropped per feature, not per module.
> 
> Don't know how I missed this; the last time I pointed out we agreed we
> could move to CR on a per-feature basis when possible you said we did not
> in fact agree to that, though we discussed it. Can you point to the
> decision allowing us to do this? If that is the case then we never needed
> to move anything to Level 4 on the grounds of moving gradient
> standardization forward, did we ?
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 18 August 2011 14:24:50 UTC