RE: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions Telecon 201-08-17

Okay.  So given that, the below (from the original minutes)  seems incompatible with that philosophy:

   fantasai: We moved a lot of things in the split from 3->4, and one of the
             reasons for the split was implementation status.
   fantasai: But that's really for the CR phase.
   fantasai: We should really be splitting based on whether we think a feature
             is mature or not.

My recollection is that we moved some portions of CSS3 Images to CSS4 Images specifically because they were not mature enough.  Did something change since the F2F such that all those moved portions are now suddenly mature enough?


-----Original Message-----
From: fantasai [] 
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 1:36 PM
To: Brian Manthos
Subject: Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions Telecon 201-08-17

On 08/18/2011 01:14 PM, Brian Manthos wrote:
> Unfortunately I find this more confusing rather than less confusing.
> To simplify...
> Assume:
> A. We have a module at WD.
> B. Some of the module is ready to be unprefixed.
> C. The rest of the module is not ready to be unprefixed.
> How do you get to...
>     1. The feature is in CR.
> ... for the features in B, while respecting the C constraint.

1. Strip the module of all features that are known unstable;
    push them to the next level or whatever.
2. Take all the features that are considered stable (or stable
    awaiting implementation feedback) to CR.

The key point is that the switch to CR is not dependent on whether there are implementations. It's whether we're stuck on waiting for implementations to making further progress.
If implementations are what's needed for further progress, it goes to CR. That is what CR is for.


Received on Thursday, 18 August 2011 20:43:20 UTC