Re: Proposition to change the prefixing policy

On Fri, 04 May 2012 20:21:26 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> Another similar alternative is to allow unprefixed things earlier in the  
> process than CR, but not as soon as a FPWD is published.  Otherwise you  
> easily get into situations like we had with transitions, where the draft  
> doesn't reflect reality, the editor is AWOL, and everyone is  
> reverse-engineering anyway, and yet prefixes are theoretically removed.

If the editor of a hot spec isn't responding, an new editor ought to
be appointed.

And if there implementations are converging towards something that is
significantly different from the spec, adjusting the spec to match reality
isn't a bad thing.

 From authors' point of view, the more implementations converge, the less
they need to use the aliased prefixed properties to work around the rough
edges, even if the spec is lagging behind to to AWOL editors or
prioritization problems in the WG. That's not bad for them.

Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 21:51:38 UTC