Re: endgame considerations

On Mar 8, 2012, at 17:19 , Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> On 3/8/12 5:46 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> PS: what's our endgame with this? Do we want to refine the draft and
>> then throw it over to the CSS WG?
> 
> That's pretty much my plan, though I don't know if it's the CSS WG who gets it.  It could also be XML (because of XPointer), HTML (because that's the document type that will see most of this use), or... oh, I'm sure there are other possibilities.

That's true, it could go to multiple places (though I doubt the HTML WG would be a good candidate).

> I'm not sure that _we_ choose who gets it next, though, so all of that may be academic.

We can't decide on our own, but we certainly have a say — particularly you and Eric.

> Sorting out the pseudo-class issues, as we've been doing, does seem like the place to start.

Banging the document into shape is certainly the first thing to do (it doesn't seem to require that much work to me though, but it would be good to get more feedback). In between that and putting it on track to become a standard I think an important step would be to get implementers interested in it. Have you heard anything in this area? I'm happy to ask around at my end too.

Chris wrote:
> 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.

I'd rather avoid it going to Note, if that's what happens it's not that much more useful than simply having the document anywhere else.

> 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.


All of these work; picking the best is likely to depend on figuring out the interest level from browsers in this.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Coming up soon: I'm teaching a W3C online course on Mobile Web Apps
http://www.w3devcampus.com/writing-great-web-applications-for-mobile/

Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 13:16:41 UTC