- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:24:23 -0800
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAEXsUPt51YXT7p7xytPZiJkXyAaGRh4wczPnz_VzYPqA@mail.gmail.com>
I make a straightforward claim that your argument relied on a false premise, you respond by calling my email "grandstanding" and "bullshit", and attempt to belittle me by claiming I'm "having a bad day". Please write back when you can discuss things without employing personal attacks and argumentative fallacies. ~TJ On Feb 15, 2012 4:58 PM, "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > [Tab Atkins Jr.:] > > > > Tantek proposed during the conf call (and I proposed during the f2f, and > > roc proposed 6 months ago on the list...) dropping the prefixes for > > Transforms/Transitions/Animations (hereafter "TTA") early, while we work > > to advance the spec normally (but quickly). > > > > The major objector to this proposal was Sylvain, who argued that if we > can > > get TTA to CR in 2-3 months (the time estimate based on a 3-week LC and > 8- > > weeks for responding to comments), we don't need to unprefix early, and > if > > we *can't* get to CR in that period, the spec clearly isn't stable > anyway. > > > > This is a false argument, based on a false equivalence. Tantek is > > suggesting that the syntax is clearly stable (single implementation for a > > long time, multiple impls more recently), so we can go ahead and unprefix > > and work under the assumption that we're constrained in any changes by > > that. However, the *functionality* may not be perfectly stable yet; in > > particular, for 3d transforms there are still some kinks to work out and > > define, such as how to render intersecting elements. > > > > The fact that functionality needs thought, tweaking, and spec work has > *no > > bearing* on whether the syntax is effectively frozen or not (in this > case, > > at least; generally, they usually are linked). But Sylvain's argument > > hinges on that, because for us to reach CR we need both the functionality > > *and* the syntax to be stable. > > > > So, we should reject Sylvain's false argument and go ahead and unprefix > > TTA. We already, for all practical purposes, act as if the current > syntax > > is a legacy constraint on future changes. We shouldn't pretend like > we're > > going to make a breaking change. > > > > This will *not* prevent us from making syntax changes in the future. > > They will just have to be compatible with the existing syntax. > > > > Tab, > > Given that half the members on today's call agreed with the course I > proposed, > is it necessary or helpful for you to single one of them out? Your > description > is at the least grossly misleading as it implies one person - me - > single-handedly > blocked progress. Given that the straw poll minuted by *you* shows that to > be > obviously untrue, I'm not sure what to make of your aggressive > revisionism. It's > disappointing, at the least. > > Second, today's discussion came to the exact same non-conclusion as it did > a > week ago. My position then was the same - as shown by Wednesday's minutes > - and > other members agreed as well, hence the general frustration. Given the > already > delicate nature of the debate, discussing the actual issues would, at this > point, > seem more productive than starting some public 'blamestorming' session, > however > fun going high-school on people may be. > > Authors expect the same unprefixed value to render the same across > browsers. > Stable syntax is a necessary component of interop but it's not sufficient. > Especially for a spec as backlogged with issues as Animations. We have 56 > issues logged against the spec and I yet have to go through about 10 months > worth of www-style. Many of these issues define what the syntax should *do* > and refer to specific interop issues [1][2]. Others involve OM issues that > should be resolved to ensure interop [3][4]. Are you suggesting issues like > these don't need to be resolved before dropping prefixes? If browsers > disagree > about relatively basic runtime issues for the next 9-12 months as we > finish the > spec, are web and framework authors going to thank the WG for the result? > Is it > really going to be an improvement to the alternative from their point of > view? > May I *at least* ask how and why the benefits to Mozilla or Opera are > worth the > possible pain on everyone else? (Microsoft is specifically concerned about > WebKit-only properties that are unspecified AND prevalent on the mobile > web) > > Yes, I do object to Animations entering Last Call with so many open issues. > And yes, I object to dropping prefixes when some of the interop issues > raised on > this mailing list persist in implementations a year after they were filed. > If > that is a "false argument" then we probably have nothing more to discuss > on this topic. > > Most of the discussion actually revolved around Transforms as there *is* > general > consensus that this area is closest to interop. I strongly support pushing > these > modules to CR. > > The allegedly 'false' argument here was that either: > 1. We are confident that the specs and implementations are nearly done; in > which > case the time saved from dropping prefixes right now should be in the > neighborhood > of ~3 months or approximately between now and the next f2f. It's up to > those folks > who cannot wait another 12 weeks to explain why. Given their release cycle > of 6 weeks > or so, it's a perfectly reasonable question imo. > > 2. We are confident in our implementations but the specs are way behind; > in that case, > I asked that we at least attempt to establish the basis of our > implementation confidence > beyond anecdotal evidence that basic transform effects - e.g. animated > rotations on > :hover - and other demo pages appear to work the same 'everywhere'. > > In other words, I requested that we at least produce reasonable > testcase-based evidence > *demonstrating* that we can drop prefixes today and make the spec match > browsers tomorrow. > Your response to that was 'But it won't change the syntax' which sort of > misses the point > by a mile as the idea is to understand which types of values, if any, may > result in > incompatible rendering across unprefixed implementations for months to > come (if not a few > years in IE's case; not everyone ships a new release at the top of the > hour). > > We have to write those testcases to exit CR anyway. If writing a bunch of > testcases to > demonstrate to ourselves and the community that we know what the hell > we're doing is such > an undue burden then I must conclude Mozilla will go for a -webkit prefix > regardless and > I'd rather not *also* give authors unprefixed properties with annoying > interop issues for > a year or more. I would assume, however, that the folks who want to > implement -webkit-transform > have done much of this testing already to ensure their -webkit alias will > work well enough with > real content. So submitting a useful bunch of testcases *should* be a > formality if Mozilla and/or > Opera are really ready to pull this specific -webkit trigger in the next > few weeks. If it's not > a formality because they haven't done that testing then I really don't > have any basis to support > their request. And, imo, neither do you regardless of how high you can > stack bullshit when you're > having a bad day. > > Now, can we call the grandstanding phase complete and get to work on > concrete and actionable > problems? Thank you. > S. > > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Oct/0214.html > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Nov/0020.html > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Apr/0036.html > [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Nov/0021.html > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 01:24:51 UTC