Re: Unprefixing CSS properties

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <> wrote:
> * fantasai wrote:
>>And if I had come up with a Suboptimal Design Flaw, you would say
>>there should be a rule that Suboptimal Design Flaw reviews should
>>be done at an earlier phase. :) You'd really want a Review Everything
>>Sooner Faster rule.
> Late reviews are the natural result from omitting design rationale from
> drafts, not caring much about properly responding to early feedback, and
> not actively seeking out early feedback, like asking horizontal review
> groups to review prior to last calls. The net effect is that flaws are
> caught only very late, meaning there will be additional last calls, and
> that in turn means it's probably better to wait even longer to review a
> draft as by the time of a first or second last call the design has not
> stabilized yet. Of course, at the time of the third last call it's like-
> ly too late to comment, so overall you don't get much review. In case of
> the CSS Working Group, it doesn't even matter much whether you review in
> this decade or in the next one, for many features.
> To avoid this self-defeating and disenfranchising effect we have things
> like schedules, milestones, and process requirements, that allow people
> to synchronize. If the first last call actually meant a Working Group's
> done all it can to gather feedback and all issues are addressed, it just
> wants to give the community one last chance to check if earlier feedback
> has been missed or has not been addressed as agreed upon, rather than,
> oh it kinda looks feature-complete so people should check it out, then
> you would obviously get your feedback earlier and more predictably.

Would you like to connect this criticism to anything that's actually
happened, or would you prefer to just rant without context?

The spec in question, after all, hasn't had a single Last Call yet,
does often include rationale in drafts, and is produced by two of the
most active and responsive editors in the CSSWG or the W3C as a whole,
so I don't understand what this email is even attempting to correct.


Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 01:27:14 UTC