W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2017

[css-align] CR publication status (was Re: [CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2017-05-10)

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 12:01:43 -0400
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20170522160143.dyw2r52jwgyh7jmo@pescadero.dbaron.org>
On Wednesday 2017-05-10 23:31 +0300, Dael Jackson wrote:
> Alignment publication
> ---------------------
> 
>   dbaron: I'll try and start asking this for all CRs: Is there
>           someone other then the editor that has read the draft and
>           thinks it's ready?
>   fantasai: We've had a lot of comments from Igalia & Matt. There
>             have been detailed reviews of the draft. I think it has
>             been impl...this was the reference spec of grid. I think
>             it's gotten decent amount of review.
>   dbaron: There's bunches not related to grid and I worry those
>           aren't ready.
>   fantasai: I think they're straight forward. We kept asking for
>             review and no one has so TabAtkins and I have done two
>             line by line reviews of the spec.
>   fantasai: If someone wants to review the spec I'm happy to delay 2
>             weeks, but if it'll be more no response and no review
>             it's not useful.
>   fantasai: I've been asking for review for years.
>   dbaron: I submitted comments a year or two ago.
>   dbaron: I would like the bar for CR to involve someone other then
>           the editors say they think it's ready.
>   fantasai: I totally agree with that.
>   <astearns> we're meant to show wide review before CR
>   <rachelandrew> Does this review need to be from an Implementor?
>                  I've spent a lot of time reading it, I'd be happy
>                  to do a more formal review.
>   <astearns> rachelandrew: does not have to be from an implementor -
>              your formal review would be great
>   dbaron: I can probably look, but not this week.
>   Rossen: I agree, dbaron. We can action the WG to review Alignment
>           spec in the following two weeks. I also sympathize with
>           fantasai saying she has asked for review. Let's use the
>           resolution forcing function. Would you agree two weeks is
>           enough before we call for resolution? Or three?
>   dbaron: 2 is fine.
> 
>   Rossen: Proposal: Move CSS Alignment to CR with the added legacy
>           value defined as at-risk. The action of starting the CR
>           process will start in 2 weeks unless we heard elsewise.
> 
[ removed bits about horizontal review ]
> 
>   RESOLVED: Move CSS Alignment to CR with the added legacy value
>             defined as at-risk. The action of starting the CR
>             process will start in 2 weeks (May 27) unless we hear
>             elsewise.

I've reviewed the spec and filed a large number of github issues; I
hope to file the remainder later today.  (I filed 37 already, have 7
more in a text file that I'm currently writing offline to be filed
when I'm back online, and I'm not quite through to the end of the
spec yet.)  I don't think all of them need to block publishing a CR,
but I think a substantial number of them do.

I also think that after the baseline issues I filed are addressed,
the baseline section could use further review, since in some cases I
think I was only filing the particularly major issues.

I'd also note that there are a number of inline issues within the
spec that should probably be addressed before CR.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                          https://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
             Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
             What I was walling in or walling out,
             And to whom I was like to give offense.
               - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)

Received on Monday, 22 May 2017 19:44:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 May 2017 19:44:08 UTC