W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Recording rationale behind CSS design decisions (Was: Re: Features and fixes incompatible with backward compatibility)

From: Tavmjong Bah <tavmjong@free.fr>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:20:06 +0100
Message-ID: <1329816006.2392.38.camel@LeLion>
To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 08:48 +0100, Anton Prowse wrote:
> On 21/02/2012 03:48, Brian Manthos wrote:
> >
> > Part of scaling up (people and modules) requires having a memory of
> > contributions and efficiently incorporating them into the evolution
> > of the product, in this case the CSS specifications.  I often feel
> > like this forum is incredibly lossy in that regard, which is
> > disrespectful of people's time and effort.  I'm not suggesting
> > chasing anyone down with torches; it doesn't really matter who is at
> > fault (if anyone at all).  Rather I'm just pointing it out as
> > something that could and should be improved.
> 
> I fully agree.  One thing that could help would be if spec editors used 
> a wiki page corresponding to their spec to describe the more 
> difficult/controversial/misunderstood decisions, either through a 
> summary of the arguments or even just links to pertinent mailing list 
> posts.  (This would also assist other WG members who perform spec reviews.)
> 
> I like the fact that the EDs of specs are becoming ever more 
> informative, with links to bug reports and descriptions of issues.  In 
> an ideal world we would have annotated versions even of RECs, where 
> rationale is summarized, though I don't think that's realistic at the 
> moment given the current feeling that the WG is already unable to 
> progress specs fast enough.  Smaller specs again seem to be the way to go...
> 

I've added an Annotation class to the SVG 2.0 draft, much like the Issue
class. The difference between the two is that annotations are intended
to be kept (but hidden) in the final specification while issues should
all be resolved and removed. Keeping a record of why things were done
the way they were is very important, I think, for future work on the
specification. An example can be seen at [1].

					Tav

[1] https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/pservers.html#SolidColors
Note, the ugly pink background indicates that the draft has not been
reviewed even once by the working group as we are just beginning work on
the spec.
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 09:32:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:50 GMT