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

RE: spec development process was: vendor prefixing

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:14:50 +0000
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F017829033AF134@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[hsivonen:]
> 
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
> > Give it a version number and call it a CR.
> 
> I think it's not a good idea to continue to couple unprefixing with CR.
> There's now momentum to unprefix certain properties. Changing the
> discussion from something concrete and actionable (whether to unprefix
> them) to readjusting when to enter CR risks losing that momentum, because
> it's harder to change the W3C Process than it is to change the prefixing
> policy or to make ad hoc exceptions to the prefixing policy.
> 
> The CR stage in the W3C Process is currently based on fiction (the notion
> that implementations start when the spec enters CR).

Of the things that puzzle me in the process, the claim that CR is a 'call 
to implementation' ranks way up the list. If you reach CR with zero 
implementation experience the CR status of your spec is simply not meaningful: 
the odds of it not going back to WD upon first contact with real code are extremely 
low vs. a spec that reaches CR on the back of several prefixed implementations,
author feedback etc. 

But this puzzlement is also a consequence of my assuming as a goal that CR should
be entered once since it also relates to test suite production, dropping prefixes 
based on IRs etc i.e. a number of final steps on the way to PR and REC.  

It could simply be that CR is overloaded with conflicting intents.

Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 16:15:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:46 GMT