- From: Alex Russell <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 23:39:58 -0700
- To: w3ctag/design-reviews <design-reviews@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2018 06:40:51 UTC
Sorry for the slow reply. We discussed again today at the W3C TAG F2F in TOK. Happy to see this move forward. * Thanks! * @dbaron talked us through this one and we agree that a new syntactic form would be pretty difficult here. Any update on a potential name? * Thanks for filing. Any luck getting more examples in? * Regarding the place for explainer-style justification for features, I'm not dogmatic. That could be in a non-normative section of a spec, but it'd still need to include all the detail of motivations, considered alternatives, and enough explanatory code to make the case for these particular additions. I haven't seen a spec doc that includes all of that, but it'd work. * Thanks for explaining `::part` pseudo. Makes sense! * Don't have a suggested alternative and don't feel too strongly. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/219#issuecomment-378835356
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2018 06:40:51 UTC