- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 06:51:33 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > Hypothetically speaking, say a really good specification of an original > idea for a new property has been drafted and sent to this list. The > spec clearly describes in great detail about its use cases, how it > affects rendering, how it interacts with other properties, the box model > and/or other relevant sections of the CSS, plus describes how it can be > incrementally rendered, any parsing issues, cascading and inheritence > issues, etc. The author also satisfactorily responds to all questions > and comments raised. > > What are the chances of such a proposal at least being discussed for 5 > minutes (before being rejected) at the next CSSWG meeting? At the _next_ meeting, almost zero. However, if it is a suggestion for a spec that I am an editor of (at the moment that would be CSS2.1, Selectors, Lists, and Generated Content), it is almost guarenteed to be discussed at a future meeting. Issues raised and proposals made get added to a first-in-first-out issues list, and issues remain on the list until they are resolved. Even minor issues frequently get significantly more than five minutes of discussion time (many relatively minor issues have had entire man-hours of time dedicated to them). Only issues that can be completely resolved by referring to previous working group consensus would be dismissed without the working group discussing the issue (in such a case, the issue would be responded to on the mailing list). In particular, every CSS2.1 issue raised on this list, as well as those raised indirectly through comments in the Mozilla, Webkit, and Opera bug systems, is guarenteed to be looked at. This includes comments that weren't intentionally raised as CSS2.1 issues but which unintentionally indicated an error, inconsistency, or ambiguity in the spec. (Since I started recording CSS2.1 feedback we have resolved around 1200 issues.) Similarly, all the Selectors ideas, even those that were dismissed as crackpot ideas on the mailing list, have been looked at by at least one of the Selectors editors. The good ones have been further discussed at face to face meetings. Proposals such as those on how to deal with table columns in selectors have been given extensive thought. (In this particular case, though, don't expect anything soon -- Selectors 2 is pretty much the last priority of the working group, and there is about a decade's worth of other CSS work scheduled before it.) I can't speak about specs I'm not an editor of. In the CSS working group it is mostly the responsibility of the editor(s) of a spec to decide how feedback for that spec is handled. Editors can change, too, especially for some of the specs that we don't consider as immediately important, and when an editor changes past feedback usually slips through the cracks, even assuming it was being collected at all. HTH, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2005 06:52:01 UTC