- From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:20:34 +0200
- To: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: 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>, 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>
On Tuesday 13 April 2010 19:46:22 Arthur Barstow wrote: > 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. In principle, I'd like to keep CSS focused on a single domain, viz., the layout of hypertext documents, because trying to cater to too may different applications is likely to create a language/model that is inconsistent and difficult to learn; and, moreover, it risks overloading the CSS WG. That said, if the requirements of widgets can be met by the addition of a keyword or a parameter to functions that the CSS OM already needs anyway, there is probably little harm. For the rest, I'd say it depends on Anne. He is driving the spec and as long as he thinks he can write the spec in a reasonable time (possibly with the help of a co-editor from WebApps) and put the right issues to discuss in front of the CSS WG, there should be no problem. I would prefer that to a task force. The amount of work a task force would save the WGs seems small, and less than the extra work it causes in terms of coordination. What would be the dependencies of this spec once the new parameters are added, and what the desired timeline? For the CSS WG, the CSSOM View module is currently in the "low priority" category, which means we may publish working drafts in this charter period, but we didn't foresee a CR. It's not forbidden, but if we then fail to progress on higher-priority items, it will raise questions. (As a technical aside, I must say that the proposed extension as formulated now, viz., a callback parameter to a test function, looks strange to me. I'd say a function should *either* be a test function *or* a function that registers a callback, but not both at the same time. But it might well be that I misunderstood the proposal.) Peter, Daniel, maybe this is something for the next CSS telcon, assuming Anne is there? > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/ > 0105.html Bert -- Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/ http://www.w3.org/people/bos W3C/ERCIM bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 09:20:44 UTC