- From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 05:28:53 -0500
- To: Tobie Langel <tobie@codespeaks.com>
- Cc: spec-prod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAJdbnOB4fTriXVKXmUUzcXA+v5k1-1MMt_B6vnET3vgorJKY0g@mail.gmail.com>
FWIW I have never understood CSS levels. And I don't know how they map to normal versioning of other things. As to "living standards" - conformance people don't like living standards in the same way that they don't like frequent updates of tools. Large organizations go through a lot of trouble to validate that version X of something satisfies their requirements. For better or worse, those organizations represent a big piece of our constituency. In order for their model to work you need stability. On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Tobie Langel <tobie@codespeaks.com> wrote: > So looking at some of the comments to the little poll Marcos created[1] > it's blatantly obvious there is no shared understanding whatsoever of what > a level means. > > I generally run bikeshed with the -f option because of that. > > Overall, we're back to the issue of needing iterative editing on one side, > and having an IP process that's unfit to deal with this on the other. > > Have we considered adopting semver for specs and having major versions > trigger IP commiments in parallel? > > --tobie > > --- > [1]: https://twitter.com/marcosc/status/724808518289776640 > > -- Shane McCarron Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2016 10:29:47 UTC