- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:58:52 -0400
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- CC: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 3/20/2012 11:53 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: > Le mardi 20 mars 2012 à 11:41 -0400, Jeff Jaffe a écrit : >> As a strawman, I would propose that to achieve your goal we need zero >> changes to the W3C process. Rather we need changes to a practices and >> culture, through a single characteristic - modularization. >> >> I may be misinformed, but my impression is that what you are requesting >> is precisely what we are trying to achieve with CSS 3. > It is close, but not precisely; CSS3 is better in that it defines > smaller modules, but we still struggle with slow standardization (e.g. > the prefix war). The reason is that these modules aren't built around > implementations schedule (or intents to implement), but about what the > WG think makes a logical consistent set. I believe a number of CSS3 > modules could go to CR today if they were trimmed of features nobody has > started to implement. My (rose colored) interpretation of what you are saying is that CSS 3 has the right paradigm, but they are choosing to implement it imperfectly. That is a culture and practice appraisal which should be fixed within this right paradigm. I would not prefer to create a different paradigm which could be equally applied imperfectly. > > (also, I'm not talking about modularization because it's a loaded word > for some people) > > Dom > >
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 15:59:03 UTC