- From: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:58:47 +0200
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>, Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, "Christiansen Kenneth (EXT-INdT/Recife)" <kenneth.christiansen@indt.org.br>, Laszlo Gombos <laszlo.1.gombos@nokia.com>, public-hypertext-cg <public-hypertext-cg@w3.org>
On Apr 13, 2010, at 15:34 , Arthur Barstow wrote: > There is consensus within WebApps's widget group that: 1) we do not want any functional overlaps between these two specs; and 2) that CSSOM is the preferred spec for relevant functionality. (I used "relevant" here because we will _not_ ask the CSS WG to take on any widget-specific functionality.) Better still, it is looking like the VMI deliverable may be dropped by the WebApps WG so that no widget-specific functionality at all ought to be needed there. > My first question is whether or not the CSS WG is agreeable to addressing (via CSSOM) our use cases? Given the amount of work the CSS WG has on its plate, I think we should specify that we have some personpower to put into this. > If yes, some practical process issues include: would this require a modification to the CSSWG's charter; Since this is part of the CSS OM, my reading is that no, it wouldn't. > what mail list should be used for technical discussions (www-style, public-webapps), do we need to create some type of Task Force between the two WGs. Speaking personally I'm fine with whatever makes this work fastest. -- Robin Berjon robineko — hired gun, higher standards http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 14:59:18 UTC