Re: CSS Charter (Apple's Wishlist)

On Mar 25, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Daniel Glazman wrote:

> David Hyatt wrote:
>> So Microsoft can propose cool new ideas like:
>> ...and have them worked on because they happen to fall under the  
>> scope of the current charter?
>> However when Apple proposes something that happens to lie outside  
>> the scope of the current charter, your response is "No! We  
>> shouldn't do that!"
>> While I can understand that your engine is struggling to play catch- 
>> up after years of neglect on your company's part, that's no excuse  
>> for holding the rest of the Web back.  Some of us have largely  
>> completed CSS2.1 and would like to see CSS improve significantly in  
>> the coming years.
>> Finally, Silverlight implements many of these ideas and is being  
>> pushed for use on the Web.  I guess "cool" is ok when it's part of  
>> your company's proprietary technology stack.
> David, like it or not, Paul has a point : the CSS WG has not  
> released a
> single REC in ten years...
> Whatever is the interest of your proposals, zilch, low, high
> or fantastic, prioritizing our work is in itself a priority
> and we must push our existing CRs to REC. It's not only a question
> of standard, it's also a more complex question of IPR. And that's  
> why we
> absolutely need the discussions on the charter we're going to have
> tomorrow.
> I hope you agree with that.

One problem with the charter process is that, in the current era,  
anything not required by the charter is considered forbidden. So  
unless the Working Group is willing to commit to delivering something  
concrete, work in a given area can be blocked completely until the  
next charter cycle. Perhaps what is needed is a category in the  
charter of areas where the working group may work, but does not commit  
to a concrete deliverable, as well as areas where the group commits to  
specific things.

I also think you are creating something of a false alternative.  
Pushing existing CRs to REC and extending into new features are not  
mutually exclusive activities, and will not necessarily rely on all  
the same people or the same skillset. For example, the people Hyatt  
mentioned as available for editing specs in the areas we have  
suggested would not be equally useful or available for, say, doing the  
work needed to take Selectors to REC.

Finally, if the CSS WG has work that needs doing but does not have  
enough interest to progress, blocking the work that people do find  
interesting to work on does not seem like a good way to solve that  
problem. In fact it creates the risk of reducing interest in the CSS  
WG as a whole. With web standards, as with software, it's important to  
have the right mix of "kinda boring but important maintenance and  
bugfixing" on the one hand, and "cool new stuff" on the other.


Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2008 06:40:57 UTC