W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2014

Re: After 5

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:19:54 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOk_reF2vWDC-Ap0O88pAaYtnHN4-+G-BKA=CHL=aYQFdPb6iw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Daniel said:

I would like to add something about modularization we rarely think of,
> being spec authors: a collection of lightweight specs is better for
> Web authors than a single huge document. And I suppose implementors
> don't really care as soon as the specs are well written.

I agree...  but it is obviously incumbent upon the spec authors, even if
they are in disparate subgroups focused upon different modules, to ensure
that when the modules are assembled they form a cohesive whole.

So, if we are going to "modularize", someone(s) need to be the
architect(s).  We don't do anyone any good if at the end of the day there
is some new, awesome feature that no one can actually support in a
consistent fashion because the way it integrates isn't obvious and each
implementor does it differently.

Fortunately, one of the things the W3C brings to the table is process.
 Sometimes heavyweight, but still.  And part of that process is the
document life cycle.  The transition from CR to PR helps us ensure that the
spec is implementable.  But even that *check* is only as good as the
underlying spec, it's relationship to the other specs it requires, and the

I know, I am rambling a little.  My point is that it is very very important
that, as modules are developed, they fit well into the puzzle. The more
puzzle pieces, the harder it is to make that certain.
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2014 20:20:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:46:10 UTC