Re: CSSWG's CSSOM spec and WebApps' View Mode Interfaces spec

Hi Bert, All,

On Apr 15, 2010, at 5:20 AM, ext Bert Bos wrote:

> 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.

I agree avoiding the overhead of a task force would be good.

Anne indicated in [1] a willingness to address our requirements in  
matchMedium and WebApps now must provide those requirements.


> 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.

Re dependencies, AFAIK, currently, none of WebApps' specs have a  
dependency on CSSOM.

Re desired timeline, that's a good question. I will discuss this with  
the group and report back.


> (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.)

FYI, Anne suggested all technical discussions for CSSOM be done on  
www-style and that message has been communicated to WebApps.


> Peter, Daniel, maybe this is something for the next CSS telcon,  
> assuming
> Anne is there?

Please notify me if there are additional process-related issues  
related to this topic.

-Art Barstow

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/ 
0105.html


>
>>
>> [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, 22 April 2010 11:51:07 UTC