- From: Schnabel, Stefan <stefan.schnabel@sap.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 11:12:52 +0000
- To: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- CC: "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
Modular in case we have someone who still overviews the entity when doing so. - Stefan -----Original Message----- From: Chaals McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru] Sent: Mittwoch, 6. April 2016 06:29 To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> Cc: HTML WG (public-html@w3.org) <public-html@w3.org> Subject: Re: Please comment: Modular HTML or monolith? Cc- w3c-ac-forum On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 05:04:36 +0200, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: >> <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: >> TL;DR: Should we move the content of specs like Shadow DOM and Custom >> Elements into HTML, or continue with the goal of more modular >> specifications? > > (CCing / moving this to the AC Forum because I am broadening the topic > to charter discussion) You should feel free to take messages here to other fora to discuss other topics, or even to raise new threads here. But please try to minimise cross-posting as far as possible. > I support modularity, especially if done in a way similar to what the > CSSWG is doing: one central monolithic bedrock spec (HTML5.x / CSS2.1) > and other specs that build upon it, either adding new features, or > gradually refining/replacing sections of the bedrock spec. I believe that our current approach basically aims to achieve that. The question is whether we should change it, either in general, or for Web Components and/or Shadow DOM. [I'll address the rest of your message, from my perspective, in another mail. Which will take longer to write]. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 8 April 2016 11:13:23 UTC