- From: Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@chromium.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 09:00:32 -0700
- To: whatwg@whatwg.org
As a UA "implementor", this seem to me to be purely a success story for the single reason that it drew so much developer participation. Regardless of what makes it into the spec, the worst possible outcome would be if the developer community learned the lesson that UA implementors are hostile to/dismissive of their problems, ideas and solutions. It seems to me like there's a problem of "walking a mile in someone else's shoes" in both directions, but ultimately developers are our customers -- not vice versa. If it's required for either "camp" to go the extra mile to accomodate the other -- it seems to me that it ought to be us. On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:18 AM, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote: >> FWIW I think that forming community groups that are limited in scope to >> gathering and distilling the relevant use cases could be a functional way of >> working. For example if, in this case, people had said "we will form a group >> that will spend 4 weeks documenting and prioritising all the use cases that >> a responsive images feature needs to cover" and then the results of that >> work had been taken to a forum where browser implementors are engaged (e.g. >> WHATWG), I think we would have had a relatively smooth ride toward a >> universially acceptable solution. > > Yup. This is basically what the CG *did*, in practice, and it was > very useful. There was an unfortunate expectation that their goal was > to write spec text that would be simply adopted into the spec, though. > Making sure the expectations are clearer in the future would be a > good move. > > ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 16:01:09 UTC