- From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:46:22 -0400
- To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, ext Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>, Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, "Christiansen Kenneth (EXT-INdT/Recife)" <kenneth.christiansen@indt.org.br>, "Gombos Laszlo.1 (Nokia-D/Boston)" <laszlo.1.gombos@nokia.com>, public-hypertext-cg <public-hypertext-cg@w3.org>
Thanks for the feedback Robin and Anne. Some responses below. -Art Barstow On Apr 13, 2010, at 10:58 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote: > 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. Ah, you've uncovered my primary motivation here :-). >> 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. Agreed. Daniel, Peter - let us know if you need something specific re resources. >> 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. That is certainly an OK position from my perspective but I think to a large extent, it is the CSS WG's call. Daniel, Peter, Bert, Chris - what are your thoughts on this? >> 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. Agreed and since Anne already expressed a preference to use www-style [1], then unless someone objects, we should use that list. Daniel, Peter, Bert, Chris - if you have any thoughts on the Task Force question, please let us know. I'm OK with keeping things simple and not creating a TF. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/ 0105.html
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 17:47:57 UTC