Re: The CSS Problem

(12/11/14 6:25), Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> [Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu:]
>> It can be argued that if CSSWG had accepted fewer drafts then IE folks
>> might have spent more time on css-flex-1 so that css-flex-1 could have
>> gone to LC before the code freeze. Or you tell me why that wasn't
>> possible.
> 
> Can we stop speculating on why MSFT did or didn't do X? Why is that
> relevant here? 

No, that's somewhat not relevant. I apologize. I only found it easier to
analyze Jens' proposal, which was

(12/11/13 10:46), Jens O. Meiert wrote:
>> You don't suggest an alternative.
>
> I believe I do, by suggesting a different focus on the Working Group
> side (what is critical, and hence, implied, what can be removed?), and
> also more focus on the community side (how can we get the most out of
> CSS without constantly screaming “more, more”?).

with concrete examples so we don't focus on abstract debates about "does
CSS have enough properties?" In particular, I think it is a good idea if
the Web developers community starts playing Flex and analyze/report
performance problems instead of showing off some of the half-baked
implementations of other modules.

The former part of the proposal "suggesting a different focus on the
Working Group side (what is critical, and hence, implied, what can be
removed?)" hasn't got a feedback though. If the group is confident
enough to say "No, removing drafts from the group isn't helpful at all"
then it could explain.



Cheers,
Kenny
-- 
Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing
Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/