Re: HTML plan

> On Jan 20, 2016, at 22:56, Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 05:37:03 +0100, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 20, 2016, at 08:04, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote:
>>>> One approach to test modularisation is to encourage people working on a
>>>> specific section to split it out from the "main" HTML specification, move it
>>>> independently to Recommendation, so that it can be referenced normatively
>>>> from the base specification. This way we can get some experience of the
>>>> process without undertaking a massive project before we really know the
>>>> costs and benefits.
>>> 
>>> This is "the CSS process", and it's worked well for the past decade
>>> (with CSS 2.1 serving as the big monolithic base, and modules
>>> gradually carving chunks of it out and levelling them independently).
>> 
>> Well, sorta.
> 
> Yes. We pretty shamelessly copied from it, although as you note we expect to do things slightly differently, revising the core specification as a whole.

If you consciously copied from the CSS process, yet made this intentional deviation, could you expand a bit on why you want that difference? I am not sure I see the upside, and I do see downsides (mainly the difficulty and overhead of doing this well).

 - Florian

Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2016 14:04:08 UTC