Re: [csswg-drafts] Let’s Define CSS 4 (#4770)

I’d think we’ve witnessed both how useful living standards are, and how difficult complex standards are to version. Personally I do not deem the (introductory) views shared convincing enough to switch course.

However, it seems the main argument revolves around marketing. I see a great many great developer experts around, but are there any *marketing* experts involved? Can or could proponents of the proposal solicit and cite expert views?

Also, are there data and metrics to support the “CSS 4” proposal? Empirically it seems “CSS”, just as “HTML”, turns out to be used quite sufficiently, and inherently more accurately, when used without a number. Can or could proponents add data that back up how their views would actually be beneficial for the field? *

Unless I missed something in this and other threads I think adding both outside views and numbers would help, a lot.

* Where did the term “CSS 3”, for example, actually turn out to be used in a way that was useful? Empirically, those who emphasized the “3” often turned out to know even less about CSS fundamentals (“1” and “2”), and therefore may have hurt our field more than they did good—to an extent where some of us took “CSS3” (and “HTML5”) on CVs as hiring red flags (!). This may constitute marketing, too, but perhaps that kind of marketing is not the one that’s desirable or intended?

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by j9t
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4770#issuecomment-591658828 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2020 21:41:43 UTC