- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:27:42 +0200
- To: "Karl Dubost" <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
- Cc: "Jacobs B. Ian" <ij@w3.org>
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 01:21:31 +0200, Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net> wrote: > Le 17 juin 2010 à 07:16, Anne van Kesteren a écrit : >> CSS 2.1 is a good example. We've had plenty of confusion there too with >> the TR/ version being hopelessly behind (and still is; lots of changes >> have been made since September 2009). > > I guess this discussion is around the > > * compromise between Stability vs Implementability > * and maybe also markup, technologies users. > > There are people with different needs with regards to specifications and > the W3C has to find a way which will make it possible to cater the > different type of communities. > > Usually, > > * implementers need a document which evolves quickly depending on the > feedback > * web developers/designers need a document which is stable. > > Maybe the W3C could "rebrand" the thing (using tools) with a developer > edition and a public edition? > I will ping Ian Jacobs about it. It fits into the discussions going on > these days. Don't developers/designers want to know the latest details too? E.g. that "autobuffer" is now named "preload" and takes a different value? -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 18 June 2010 07:28:50 UTC