- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:57:46 -0700
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Sunday 2012-03-25 23:36 +0200, Daniel Glazman wrote: > Le 25/03/12 22:05, Anne van Kesteren a Γ©crit : > > >On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:36:03 -0000, Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com> > >wrote: > >>This whole thing about not kicking in until Recommendation seems > >>irrelevant. What we should be doing is figuring out how to divide up > >>problems so specs don't take 10 years to complete. > > > >I don't think there's agreement that web standards can be completed. > >Certainly HTML, CSS, DOM, JavaScript etc. are all very much in flux. > > Speaking for my own chapel, all browser vendors are members of the CSS > WG where work is based on the fact we do complete web standards and > consider that web standards are completable. > > Disagreeing with facts doesn't change the fact they're facts. CSS 2.1 is a Recommendation, but it's not complete. People will continue to find mistakes in it or places where it doesn't agree with reality, and they'll continue needing to be fixed. We should also continue to improve the test suite to reflect areas where authors have problems because implementations don't agree. CSS as a whole certainly isn't complete, and I think the working group pays a significant cost to get some things to Recommendation, e.g., in spending energy discussing, implementing, and testing unimportant features that are related to high-priority features. -David -- π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π π’ Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ π
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 21:58:35 UTC