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

Re: ::Parts of cats and hats everywhere, slashed by shadow

From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:57:12 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <443ED0EC-6CF7-4393-9EF2-EDDDB7E2EE7B@adobe.com>

On Feb 9, 2014, at 4:24 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote:
>> I wonder if there is a possible intermediate step between today’s proposal and one that supports a Type 2 model, namely enabling the author to lock down his component i.e. we leave to later the mechanism by which the components’ public interface is defined but, in the meantime, allow either fully public or fully private components as a first step.  We’d still have to agree on which is the right default - and this may be hard enough to warrant making an attempt at a Type 2 definition - but could this be a workable compromise?
> 
> As Boris has said, what does "fully private" mean?  The *definition*
> of Type 2 isn't clear, because it doesn't have a unifying ethos, and
> so all the various places where you might want to hide things have to
> be found and how they work determined.

Yes, it seems more of a set of properties; I doubt I can define this better than Maciej at this point.

I do not think we need to know the exact definition to answer my question though. Which was whether it might help to separate the definition and implementation of Type 2 ‘private’ from the definition and implementation of those features the component author would need to control which component parts are public.

> 
> So no, we can't just define a switch.  We have to take the time (a
> not-insigificant amount of time, most likely) to figure out exactly
> what the "hidden, closed" option on such a switch would do, and in the
> meantime we'd be held up from shipping the already-defined "hidden,
> open" option.

If we’re not quite sure what we’re talking about, let’s not try to guess how long it’ll take. To the extent you seek WG consensus before shipping, it would appear you are already held up anyway. So you can try to achieve consensus that what you have now is appropriate; if that doesn’t work, you can try and reduce the scope of what changes need to be agreed on and then shipped. My question would relate to the latter course. 

Oh, and shouldn’t we all really move this to public-webapps?
Received on Monday, 10 February 2014 00:58:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:19 UTC