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

RE: Proposition to change the prefixing policy

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 16:59:36 +0000
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290A34A66F@TK5EX14MBXC263.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
At the time Tantek wrote this up here http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/process



From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 6:12 PM
To: Tab Atkins Jr.
Cc: Florian Rivoal; www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposition to change the prefixing policy


On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com<mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com>> wrote:
Tantek's proposal, which he brought to the group late in the last
Paris FtF, hits approximately the same sweet spot but with less
ambiguity - it's nearly a mechanical process.  As a reminder, his
proposal is that, at the moment anyone can prove two interop
implementations of a feature with a WG-approved testsuite, we cut that
feature into an LC->CR draft.  In effect, we have a constantly-moving
ED, with snapshots of testably-interop features calved off as
necessary.

I think that Florian's proposal matches what a lot of us want to see,
and that Tantek's proposal accomplishes Florian's goals with the least
ambiguity (and thus greatest chance of success) of all the variants
I've heard so far.  We should adopt it.

Given your summary of Tantek's proposal, I think I support it as well. However, I would like to see it in concrete form to be sure. Is it well documented at some link?

Received on Sunday, 6 May 2012 17:00:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:53 GMT