Endgame

On Thursday, March 8, 2012, 11:46:01 AM, Robin wrote:

RB> PS: what's our endgame with this? Do we want to refine the draft
RB> and then throw it over to the CSS WG?

These are several options.

It could be argued to be in scope of the CSS WG or argued to be out of scope (I can do either, which would you like?)

In the same way that not every specification that uses XML has to be published by the XML Core WG, not every specification that uses Selectors has to be published by CSS WG especially if, as here, no change is made to the Selectors spec.

It could be published as a W3C Note, but then it wouldn't have the RF goodness and would not necessarily have demonstrated implementability or interop.

It could be developed here and then a fast WG proposed, chartered to take the existing spec through LC and CR.

It could be developed here and then the CSS WG rechartered to ad this explicitly in scope (and perhaps form a taskforce as a subgroup) to take the existing spec through LC and CR.

It could be published as an Internet Draft and then taken through the IETF standards track as an RFC.

In terms of speed, a new WG would be best and in terms of widest IPR coverage, a subgroup of CSS WG would be best.

-- 
 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups

Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 18:54:52 UTC