- From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:38:42 -0500
- To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Cc: public-nextweb@w3.org
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 1:09 PM, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: > | Browser vendors are not into it… they know about it, > | but they are really resistant. > > This has been our experience as well, predictably. I think the main issue is > that they don't see why it's a benefit for *them*. > I was hoping I would have some time at lunch to finish up an article with more - but I'm not sure I will, so I just want to note while we are on this "scope" and pieces at play with how things are filled - it isn't even necessary to limit ourselves to things that actually take place in the browser. Francios, Clint and I have all discussed this already - for example - lots of things already exist that do transpiling and pre-processing - they are popular, efficient and actually encouraged by numerous W3C members... So it might be the case that it is good to pull in/cooperate those people on some strategies as well. Just as one example - Tab's Cascading Attribute Sheets is almost certainly plausible with preprocess/transipile -- one of the biggest barriers to it is parsing -- writing and keeping up to date an even "mostly" compliant CSS parser is hard work... I'm not saying it isn't worth it to have a JS version (in fact, Tab does) but there are plenty of systems in use by the CSS community where such a thing would almost be an afterthought - and you would simultaneously expand the awareness/audience and group pretty quickly via established user bases.
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 20:39:09 UTC