- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 17:15:00 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
You were fine. The WICG document was produced with significant cross-browser discussion and agreement; that's the important part. Checking in with the CSSWG when producing a document intended to eventually be absorbed by the WG is good practice, to make sure there's wider review, but looking over your issues list I see a lot of familiar names, so I'm not too concerned about narrow review. (This is *especially* true when doing new properties or values, as there's significant expertise in the WG that might not be shared by experienced engineers ouside the WG, but for a straightforward JS API like this it's much less of an issue.) The only thing that might have been done slightly better is that it looks like this was shipped before any patent agreements covered it; that comes for free when publishing a Rec-track document in a WG, but has to be done manually in a CG with a separate agreement. (Maybe y'all did go thru that process; I can't tell without digging into your archives.) That's just exposing browsers to some potential risk, which is mitigated by having it published thru a WG with wide membership like ours. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6339#issuecomment-864174692 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 18 June 2021 17:15:26 UTC