Re: CSS Module Priority

On May 6, 2008, at 8:33 PM, fantasai wrote:

> Linss, Peter wrote:
>> The levels are defined as:
>> High: At least two implementers have expressed very strong interest.
>> Medium: At least two implementers have expressed medium or better  
>> interest.
>> Low: At least two implementers have expressed low or better interest.
>> ...
>> Medium Priority
>>                CSS Snapshot 2007
>>                CSS Namespaces
> CSS Namespaces is already implemented by 2+ implementations. How  
> does that
> not express strong interest in implementing the module? Or was your  
> question
> "how interested are you in seeing this spec" rather than "how  
> interested are
> you in implementing this spec", because the Namespaces spec is  
> pretty boring...
> CSS Snapshot 2007 is a meta-spec. It doesn't define a technology  
> that needs
> to be implemented, it puts the various pieces in context. It should  
> advance
> in parallel with the specs it references, all of which -- aside from  
> Namespaces -- are in your "high priority" list.

The current list is based solely on the feedback we've received from  
implementers so far and is strictly by the criteria I listed with no  
manipulation or massaging of data by me. Given Namespaces  
implementation status and that it is currently pending a transition to  
CR it is obviously of higher priority and will get bumped to the high  
priority section for the charter.

The purpose of this email was to solicit public feedback from  
implementers we may not know about and to have an opportunity to gain  
advocates for modules at risk of being left behind. Given that, I felt  
it was best to publish the data as is so everyone can see where things  
stand. Also, we have not yet heard from Opera so some items may shift  
upwards once we hear from them.



Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2008 15:56:49 UTC