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

RE: The CSS Problem

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:25:22 +0000
To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kanghaol@oupeng.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>, "Jens O. Meiert" <jens@meiert.com>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178291BE694F3@TK5EX14MBXC221.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu:]
> 
> It can be argued that if CSSWG had accepted fewer drafts then IE folks
> might have spent more time on css-flex-1 so that css-flex-1 could have
> gone to LC before the code freeze. Or you tell me why that wasn't
> possible.

Can we stop speculating on why MSFT did or didn't do X? Why is that
relevant here? If you must know, Tab is correct. By the time the final
naming settled it was not optimal for us to have dev/test engineers work
on renaming a bunch of working features across our code as well as all 
the apps (built-in and in the store) that already depended on a syntax 
described in a draft from three months earlier. 

> *shrug*. In any case, for Flex, I would mostly want to use the shorthand
> 'flex-flow' but IE 10 only has 'flex-direction' and 'flex-wrap', and I am
> unlikely to want to use a Regions that can only flowed from an <iframe>
> when WebKit doesn't support it. Can you argue why the status quo would be
> the same if CSSWG hadn't accepted these many proposals at once?
> 
> > and you shouldn't trust performance assertions from random people
> > without good data.  ^_^
> 
You shouldn't grasp at straws, really.
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 22:26:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:02 GMT