Re: Spec organizations and prioritization

[adding Daniel Glazman]

On 3/22/2012 6:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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.

I don't understand what more process you think I am creating.  In 
particular, my suggestion adds zero rules.

> Enforcing more rules on limited resources is a sure way to make them 
> go away. (Unless you lead by example and demonstrate the effectiveness,

I was suggesting that the CSS group was providing the example.  Surely 
you don't want me to create a new group just for the purpose of setting 
an example.

> 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.

Indeed, I said at the beginning that I might be misinformed.  I thought 
that CSS 3 was more modular and moving faster.  If I am wrong, I stand 
corrected.  I ask Daniel to comment.

>
>
>> 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.
>
>

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 12:23:12 UTC