W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2012

RE: Fast-track new people to areas www-style need the most help with

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:48:43 +0000
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Jon Rimmer <jon.rimmer@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F017829034026BD@TK5EX14MBXC296.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Bjoern Hoehrmann:]
> * Jon Rimmer wrote:
> >That was in response to Bjoern's post, where he seemed to be saying
> >implementer bandwidth was lower than editor capacity, citing historical
> >examples of HTML features that never received implementation, at least
> >that was my interpretation? I just wanted to point out what seemed like
> >a good counter example.
> The features in the example were specified and implemented, but only by
> one browser vendor. The point was that "CSS development is slow, so let us
> make more editors" is a bit too simplisitic; 

If it was said literally like that then yes, that is too simplistic. Given
how many times it was pointed out that implementor interest was a significant
prioritization factor, I don't think it was simplistic. 

in the example there was no
> editor shortage, yet it took over a decade from specifications and an
> implementation to go to something that you can consider using some time
> soon, for various reasons that need to be considered when trying to make
> CSS development go faster or whatever else one might be looking for.

Well, I'll admit I'm getting a little tired of the whiny line about things
taking a decade to complete without any mention of the specific spec or context 
whatsoever. Yes, it did take that long to finish a number of specs but let's 
keep some things in mind: such as, for instance, the browser vendor with the 
90+% market being peripherally involved or absent for at least half the time. 
There *are* reasons things don't move beyond a certain stage that are out of
a Working Group's reach. In other cases, editors leave for new jobs and there
is no suitable replacement. 

So I'd like to steer clear of easy generalizations and be specific. 

Though I'm willing to bet people will still talk about the specs that took a decade
to complete 10 years from now...
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:49:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:10 UTC