W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Shadow DOM: Hat and Cat -- if that's your real name.

From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 02:59:42 +0000
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1B3E26ED-56EC-4976-BFB9-2B96282DD65E@adobe.com>

On Feb 4, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
 wrote:

> 
> On Feb 3, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> wrote:
>>> However, I would like to do this expeditiously (days, not weeks), so that
>>> Blink is able to ship with the new names.
>> 
>> To make this statement a little clearer:
>> 
>> Chrome *will* be shipping Shadow DOM publicly (in conjunction with
>> Moz) in the *very near* future.  Whatever API gets shipped will be
>> frozen almost immediately.  If you want to suggest name changes, as we
>> brainstormed a bit at the f2f, do so RIGHT NOW or forever hold your
>> peace.
> 
> 
> So let's see:
> - This feature isn't in a mature specification
> - This feature is not even in a spec draft at all afaict (couldn't find it in Shadow DOM or Selectors editor's drafts)
> - No other browser ships it
> - No other browser even plans to ship it soon (notwithstanding your apparently inaccurate statement about Mozilla)
> - The relevant WG has disagreement over both the syntax and the semantics
> 
> And you'd like to ship it within days and freeze it almost immediately.
> 
> I find it surprising that this is considered consistent with the guidelines at <http://www.chromium.org/blink#compatibility>. Even if it somehow is, it seems to me the working group should not agree to freeze whatever syntax Chrome ships under these circumstances.
> 
> Regards,
> Maciej
> 
> 
Though the individual ship policies of any vendor are somewhat out of scope around here, I'll admit I've been wondering the same; more importantly for www-style, I agree the request also seems at odds with the process followed by this WG and W3C in general. As such it ends up coming across as asking for a last-minute rubber-stamp to a unilateral decision; but then I can't quite figure out why anyone, let alone Tab, would think that'd even work so I'm hoping for a massive all-around misunderstanding...
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 03:00:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:18 UTC