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

Re: A CSS equivalent of HTML's DOCTYPE trigger

From: Jon Rimmer <jon.rimmer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:31:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ZDCiAKmWaFdiXOvOZxnd+behb4OUX=O94nGN2upJL_uO1gVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On 11 January 2012 00:26, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 01/10/2012 03:44 PM, Jon Rimmer wrote:
>>
>> Leaving aside the actual problem at hand, this thread is an example of
>> the slightly frustrating nature of providing feedback and suggestions
>> to the WG.
>>
>> Matt has a use-case/problem which the extant mechanisms within CSS are
>> not capable of resolving. I made a couple of suggested changes in the
>> thread that might help with it. But since neither of us is a member of
>> the WG, how can we proceed? We can't raise issues in the tracker, and
>> we can't edit the wiki, so we have no way to ensure the problem and
>> ideas don't get lost in the mix.
>
>
> Hm, the wiki is supposed to be publicly editable under /ideas. I seem to
> have lost that rule. Restored.

Great! Though actually, I hadn't tried editing it, I was going by what
the wiki homepage says: "Note that editing is restricted to CSS
Working Group members except in the Testing section (which is open to
all)."

>
>> That lack of a structured mechanism for non-members to submit and
>> track feedback is something that gives the WG the feel of a vendors'
>> club sometimes.
>
>
> Venders use the same mechanism, actually, so you're not alone. WG members
> are supposed to collect feedback and do something with it, but as you note
> this isn't very structured and it doesn't scale well. For concrete issues,
> we have the relevant spec editors track them. But for more hazy things like
> this, we don't have a good mechanism.

Well the thing with vendors is, they have multiple representatives in
the WG, and they can be on the teleconfs, raise issues on the tracker
[1], host/attend the FTFs, go to TPAC, and can employ people to edit
specs for a living. They have a lot more ability to agitate about the
issues and ideas they're focused on. So yes, the basic process, hazy
as it is, is the same for all, but in practice it's more of an Animal
Farm situation, all participants are equal, but some are more equal
than others :-P

I'm not naive, I know vendors are the ones paying $70,000 for W3C
membership and untold $m making browsers and employing developers and
spec writers. Obviously they're going to have a greater influence
because of their greater investment, but it'd be nice for us minnows
to have a way to make sure out contributions don't get forgotten
about.

And I do know you are trying to improve the situation; it's
appreciated! This just seemed like a good opportunity to flag the "so
what now?" feeling I get from my occasional contributions to
discussions here.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/raised
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2012 01:32:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:48 GMT