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

RE: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:05:36 +0000
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290AD348A8@TK5EX14MBXC265.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Daniel Glazman:]
> 
> 
> That's also the reason why I asked to explain requestFullscreen(). It can
> sound obvious, but it's not. And in fact, we should _never_ introduce a new
> syntax, API, whatever w/o saying _what it does_ from a functional point of
> view before explaining how it works.
> 
To the extent possible I think specs should document some of the core use-cases 
and scenarios they are derived from e.g. as an informative intro or appendix. 
Extra points for covering scenarios that are explicitly out of scope for the 
current version. This would be especially valuable for new specifications.

I don't think people who don't live in WHATWG/W3C mailing lists and/or make browsers 
for a living can read a document like this one - or, say, CORS - and hope to figure 
out what problems they are/aren't trying to solve. (I'm not sure they're even that
obvious for people who do....)

Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 22:06:30 GMT

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