- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:27:10 +0100
- To: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>
- Cc: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:41:50 +0100, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: > 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. To me it sounds like you are trying to actually create more process with respect to how specifications are designed. Enforcing more rules on limited resources is a sure way to make them go away. (Unless you lead by example and demonstrate the effectiveness, but whenever someone brings up the magical word "modularization" that has not happened.) > I may be misinformed, but my impression is that what you are requesting > is precisely what we are trying to achieve with CSS 3. > > CSS 2.1 was a monolith and took years to complete. For CSS 3, the team > architected the work by describing 50 modules that could proceed to REC > independently. Isn't that the same as identifying a set of features > that are being worked on simultaneously? Doesn't that provide the lever > required to move independently based on what is being implemented. CSS 2.0 was monolith and completed soon. CSS 3 has been going on as long as CSS 2.1. If you actually look at the relative size of the modules compared to CSS 2.1 I don't think we are progressing faster. And quality-wise it leaves a lot to be desired too, because CSS is not modular. The syntax and vocabulary are intertwined and there are complex interdependencies between features. The way it is being drafted now leaves a lot of open questions. > To be sure, we might not have selected the precise correct > modularization nor implementing it perfectly. But is seems to address > this requirement. > > I believe that WebApps also has much of this independence - although > perhaps less rigorously. > > It would be interesting to see whether in HTML 5.1 we could get HTML to > a similar description. The TAG has given similar high-level suggestions like that. Apart from a few people with lots of editing experience and knowledge of the platform however, nobody ever dives into that concretely. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 10:27:46 UTC