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

Re: [css-variables] CSS Variables are a NEW kind of variable

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:48:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA4sfTe6MbkbuFgBAp32SL4UZY1j_AfctpSWatyGAvv5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Cc: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>, www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:34 PM, François REMY
<fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> | On the other hand, I don't know if the WG or W3C allows this, but a way
> | to move this forward without disturbing the editor seems to be to ask
> | Brian and folks to fork the spec into a tutorial-like Web developer
> | version, where the terminology can be tweaked to make sure the least
> | people are "confused".
>
> I think it will just add to the confusion. Let's keep one specification, one
> name for a single feature.

If people think it's easiest to present their ideas in the form of
alternative specs, that's fine.  I did that in my leadup to joining
the WG with my gradient syntax blog post:
http://www.xanthir.com/blog/b41G0 .  This approach has the distinct
advantages that it pulls arguments together into a single updateable
location, so following the argument is easier (especially when it
comes time to actually make a decision), and it also forces the
opponents to make concrete solutions, which helps everyone explore the
possibilities better.


> If the spec editor dislike a proposal so much it don't want to maintain the
> spec if the change is done, we've got a problem we need to address another
> way than to fork a specification. I'm admirative of Tab's work and I
> seriously don't think he would refuse a change if it was accepted by the
> majority as a better idea.

The CSSWG allows editors some leeway in steering their specs, but
ultimately the document is a product of the WG itself, and is subject
to the decisions of the group.


> | Indeed, this is totally orthogonal. A problem I have with this thread is
> | that I can't tell if some feedback is normative or just
> | informative/editorial.
>
> Initial intent of this thread was to be editorial (unlike the 'Putting it
> all toegether' thread that was a proposal, just like 'Using $foo' one).
> However, the [css-variables] threads are so mangled toegether that I would
> not assume that follow-up messages (even from myself) preserved the intent.

Indeed, shrug.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 19:49:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:55 GMT