- From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:44:53 +0100
- To: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr.: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: >> >> Late reviews are the natural result from omitting design rationale from >> drafts, not caring much about properly responding to early feedback, and >> not actively seeking out early feedback, … >> >> To avoid this self-defeating and disenfranchising effect we have things >> like schedules, milestones, and process requirements, … > > Would you like to connect this criticism to anything that's actually > happened, or would you prefer to just rant without context? I guess this happened to everyone who has been participating here for a while. It’s really frustrating to receive a reply like “I see your point, but …” followed by “don’t bother, this is just an early draft, an editor’s playground” or “… it’s too late to change now”, then five or ten years later, still neither are there interoperable implementations nor is there a CR, but the issues remain. It happened to me for sure (e.g. with Color or Text). Basically it’s hard to find the best point in time for each kind of feedback. It often feels as being acknowledged as either too soon or too late. That being said, the situation has improved in recent years and differs from module to module. I’m also really glad CSS 2.1 has advanced to REC, because that spares us mostly of the “which spec to put into” discussions. A lesson learned to be learned is, that when you drop good ideas from an advanced draft for a module at level n, you should move it (visibly to the public) to an early draft at level n+1. That means you’d almost always manage two (not three) levels at once, the higher one being a strict functional superset of the lower one. > The spec in question, I believe this thread is not about one module or editor in particular.
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 08:45:31 UTC