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

Re: Procedural (non-technical) point about freezing the cat and hat combinators before they've even been defined (was Re: Shadow DOM: Hat and Cat -- if that's your real name.)

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 22:08:45 +0100
Message-ID: <52F2A85D.9000204@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/02/2014 17:03, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> Do you understand the difference between "we refuse to change" and "we
> suspect certain things will get difficult to change rather quickly,
> because that's how the web works"?

This is my second (or 3rd depending on how you count) browser war and
trust me on that, the first one was far harsher, so yes I think I do
perfectly understand what is at stake here.

> Attributing an ultimatum to my words is blatantly violating the
> Principle of Charity, especially since I've *very explicitly*
> clarified that I'm talking about the latter.

I suggest you read again quietly your own words at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0036.html
and try to understand how they were possibly perceived outside of
Google.

> I don't like contributing to a conversation that perpetually
> misinterprets my words and attributes malice to me and my team. :/

Nobody attributes malice at all. We all do mistakes and I think the
way Google brought the need to reach a fast consensus was a mistake.
I am not saying the need itself is a mistake. I already told you so
in private.

> We've been working on Shadow DOM in the open for 2 years, and have
> gone to great efforts to get the other browser vendors involved and
> seek their input and opinions as we develop the standard.  We feel the
> standard is sufficiently advanced, the remaining issues sufficiently
> small, and the benefit to authors sufficiently great to justify
> shipping sooner rather than later.

Can you just s/We've/Adobe has/ and s/Shadow DOM/CSS Regions/ and
repeat that ?-)

> This is a bold/aggressive approach, but it's neither hostile nor
> unique.

That's correct but everything is a question of perception and it seems
most people have not perceived things the way you (hear Google) think
they should have perceived it.

</Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 21:09:07 UTC

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