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

the 'rebeccapurple' CfC

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 12:30:29 +0200
Message-ID: <53A40D45.2090808@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
I am writing this message with multiple hats on my head	and this
is not an easy message to write: individual, Member of the W3C,
and Co-chair of the CSS WG. I am not willing to make any
discrimination below because I am unable to do so on such a
emotional topic.

The argument that a tribute has no place in a document released
by the W3C has some value but Standards are written by humans and
made for humans after all. The technical details we carefully
iron have only one goal: allow a better Web for everyone,
everywhere. Tributes are part of the human nature and human
history. In that light, the human beings the CSS WG members are
have decided to pay a tribute to another human being, and I fail
seeing in which name or idea of purity Web Standards should be
sanctuarized up to the point It Should Not Happen There. I had
myself a few light concerns about adding this value to CSS Color
Level 4, but clearly not to the	point I	could be objecting or
even express a negative	opinion. I support this as in individual
and I'm happily willing to let my other hats hide this time.

Even IETF has released at least two memorial RFCs after the
passing of Jon Postel; yes, I know, these are informational RFCs
but still, the whole IETF community and in particular the RFC
Editor agreed that it was ok. This is similar here.  Eric Meyer
has been an invaluable contributor to CSS and the CSS WG.  The
CSS WG has decided to accept a proposal emerging from the
community to add a new colour in memory of his daughter. Most
browser vendors have expressed their support and will implement
it. RFE bugs are already filed, patches are already in and
waiting for the end of this CfC. Firefox, Servo, Safari, Chrome
and IE will all implement this and I heard no objection from any
member of the CSS WG.

Tab is right when he says this CfC is for CSS WG Members. The CSS
WG decided long ago to work entirely in the open. That does not
mean our decision system has changed. The Members of the Group
still decide based on consensus _in the Group_. I, as a
Co-chair, have and don't want to have any impact on this. This is
the difference between chairing and leading.

The current CfC	follows	the rules of the CSS WG, I only decided
to allow a very short call period because this is a very
emotional topic, something so different from our daily duties.  I
will declare consensus based on Members' opinions, as Tab said,
if no objection	is raised before tonight 11:59pm pacific time, as
announced earlier. Browser vendors will then check the patches in, as
announced too, and I have no problem seeing that happen before an
official Call for Implementations.

In summary: from time to time, the human beings	appear behind the
geeks and we ask you to	accept it. For once in its lifetime, the CSS WG
does not make something for the whole globe, but only for our friends
Eric and Kat Meyer. And for their daughter Rebecca and her love for
#663399.

Thank you.

</Daniel>
Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 10:30:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:22 UTC