- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:29:54 -0800
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Spec Shortnames
---------------
- Assigned actions for next steps in switching over all specs.
Prioritization
--------------
- Co-chairs surveyed WG members about their priorities; results
are posted at
http://disruptive-innovations.com/zoo/customers/CSSWG/Priorities.html
with VSI = Very Strong Interest
SI = Strong Interest
LI = Low Interest
NI = No Interest
- Top items are Flexbox, Transforms, Transitions, Animations, and
Conditional Rules, regardless of formula.
- Layout modules (flexbox, multicol, regions, grid) always in top ten
- Middle shifts around depending on weighting formula, but
Level 4 specs consistently towards the bottom of the list
====== Full minutes below ======
CSS spec shortnames
-------------------
florian: Side question - naming question? When do we do the naming
switchover?
plinss: We should verify with W3C about the TR naming, and do the
whole switch at the same time as we publish these next drafts.
Bert: You need a good reason to do a rename on TR.
TabAtkins: (Not really a rename - the old links will just redirect to
the new locations.)
florian: The current naming convention is pretty inconsistent. We've
now decided on a real convention, and we'd like to apply it
across all of them, with redirects so content isn't lost.
Bert: We had a rule already, but the names are just us. The names on
/TR don't have a system. But putting in lots of redirects and
such is expensive.
TabAtkins: Redirects are super cheap and easy, actually.
Bert: But why did we want to do this?
florian: The current naming patterns confuse people about "CSS3" and
"CSS4", and are inconsistent with unleveled things. The
new system keeps everything consistent.
plinss: We also want to have shortnames that are unlevelled that
redirect to the latest level of each module.
Bert: We have that for CSS1 and CSS2. We can make one for CSS3 as well.
plinss: We don't want a "CSS3" link. We want "/TR/css-writing-modes/"
which redirects to "/TR/css-writing-modes-3/", etc.
leaverou: If there's a Rec in level 3 and a WD in level 4, when does
the unlevelled link switch over?
fantasai: We switch when it reaches "Snapshot-level" stability.
Bert: Well, I'm not going to ask. I don't think we should do this.
plinss: We're not asking you to ask, we're asking you *who* to ask.
Bert: Our webmaster.
fantasai: I'll take an action item for it.
ACTION fantasai to bug the W3C webmaster about setting up redirects
for the Great CSSWG Renaming (immediately before LC, natch)
<trackbot> Created ACTION-512
Prioritization List
-------------------
glazou: Starting tomorrow we'll have intrusions from observers and
other WGs, etc.
glazou: probably better to do this while we have a quiet environment.
glazou: Here's the aggregated data from our survey.
http://disruptive-innovations.com/zoo/customers/CSSWG/Priorities.html
glazou: Not public yet, but I'll post it later today to www-style.
szilles: If you tried other formulas, what was the variance?
glazou: Almost no effect on the top 4 items, mostly just in the middle.
florian: Picking up on a comment from dbaron earlier, there were a
lot of specs that are *nearly* finished, and so high-priority
to finish, but that I'm not really interested in personally.
So I found it hard to rate things sometimes.
glazou: Same as me - I had several specs that I thought were highly
strategic for the WG, but that I don't personally care about.
szilles: So that suggests that we might temporarily boost the priority
of specs that are nearly out the door, just to finish them off.
If that's accepted, I'm fine with this.
glazou: There are a few points I'd like to draw from this.
glazou: Whatever formula I used, TTA were always at the top.
glazou: The layout modules (flexbox, multicol, regions, grid) are always
in the top ten.
glazou: There's not a single level 4 spec in the top ones; highest one
ranges 17-30.
<dbaron> 58 specs in list; 18 responses to survey
glazou: 59 specs for a single group, even with all the people in this
room, I think is far too much.
glazou: We have the workforce to work on 12-15 specs. 59 is just crazy.
glazou: I'm not saying we have to trash anything. I'm just saying we
should put some of them into a fridge to keep them fresh, and
resurrect them when we're ready only.
glazou: Some of the level 4 specs are here when the level 3 still
doesn't have a test suite.
TabAtkins: Though mostly, this was because we deferred things from L3,
so had to put them somewhere -- therefore started a level 4
draft
glazou: I agree, but we have to care a bit more about the signals to
the outside world.
florian: I think it's not too important to publish a FPWD of things
that we're not seriously pursuing yet.
glazou: Even EDs are visible. We have a wiki for this kind of thing.
fantasai: wiki not a great place for spec test that's already been
written but deferred
szilles: No matter what we do, the public will be confused. We can
mitigate this, though.
szilles: I think it would be useful to have something on the public page
that bullet-points what levels things are.
szilles: I think trying to make our working process painful isn't the
answer.
florian: We have a disclaimer for things that are obsolete and very wrong.
florian: We can have one for the really immature drafts too.
dbaron: We can make the title/h1 say "Material deferred from CSS-foo
level 3 for future use".
TabAtkins: Sounds good to me.
glazou: I remind you that I heard at TTWF that things on dev.w3.org
are better than /TR.
glazou: So I don't want things looking better when they're experimental
versus real specs.
fantasai suggests using the GeoCities stylesheet
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2012AprJun/0000.html
glazou: Continuing, the bottom of the table doesn't change very much.
glazou: Some of these I didn't include in the original email, so their
numbers aren't reliable.
TabAtkins: Could you mark the rows specially for those that weren't
in the original email?
dbaron: Also, can we have a column that's just a straight sum of
responses? Most of them have 18, some have 17, but some have
next to none.
glazou: Speech is strongly at the bottom, even though it's a CR.
chris: If you have a spec with one strong editor and it's also the
prime implementor, that's what you expect.
glazou: So what do we do about it?
fantasai: I think we leave it in CR and let the people who are interested
in it write tests and such.
fantasai: Speech is quite different from the rest of the specs, different
canvas and such.
* sylvaing +1 to fantasai
glazou: I want to avoid 8 years of CR.
dbaron: The 8 years of CR was an issue because we had a spec we all
actually cared about. It's not a problem for Speech.
szilles: I think it's the role of the chairs to discuss with the champion
what their plans are for the spec. I agree that simply leaving
it isn't the responsible thing to do.
szilles: I mean, if we can't find a second implementor, but still believe
it's implementable, we could change our CR exit criteria.
chris: One thing we could do is talk to the WAI people and say "hey, we
have this spec which could probably help you", and see if they
have any implementor interest, and say that if we don't get any
movement in two years or so we can move it back to Note, and see
what happens.
fantasai: I think it's a good thing to have a normative definition of
what we think Speech should be done.
fantasai: We currently have a Rec (CSS 2.0) that is definitely *not*
what we want to do.
fantasai: I think it's great to pursue the people who are interested
and see if they're willing to help get it to CR, but I don't
think we should be afraid to leave it at CR as the right way
to implement for people that care.
szilles: Two impls are definitely preferred, but one is technically
sufficient for a standard.
florian: So I think we should support a low-priority spec like that as
long as they don't eat too much time.
TabAtkins: Agree, and Speech hasn't needed much input for a while anyway.
glazou: Back to the list, the takeaway is that the top and bottom don't
change much regardless of your ranking formula, but the middle
does.
glazou: So there are definitely some specs that are *clearly* something
the WG should work on.
glazou: TTA is clearly the highest priority of all.
glazou: So whoever you are, help TTA get out as a Rec asap.
glazou: Flexbox is the 2nd or third spec in the list no matter what we
do. Strong interest from all vendors.
TabAtkins: On that, I should have a test suite written by the end of
the year.
discussion of tests for flexbox
<lstorset> FYI TabAtkins, Opera's Flexbox test suite is submitted at
http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/search/testcase/spec/CSS3-FLEXBOX/owner/oyvind/load/t135/
glazou: top 10 here, almost whatever I do, is the same
glazou: nearly all members agree on these 10
glazou: I think we should focus our time, energy, conf calls, on these
ones if we can
glazou: to solve technical issues, discuss them, make them move, etc. asap
dbaron: One question about the responses.
dbaron: Were these all one response per member company?
glazou: Yes.
leaverou: I think me and Bert both answered.
leaverou: because you asked me to reply on behalf of the authoring community
glazou: yes, that's fine. W3c is a bit special in this regard. You're
more similar to an invited expert.
glazou: A few personal surprises.
glazou: I was surprised to see Device Adaptation lower than I thought.
glazou: I was surprised to see 9 very strong interest for Regions.
glazou: I was also a little puzzled to see more interest for Transforms
than for Trans/Anim.
<SimonSapin> that was me (and public)
glazou: So I'd like us to use the top of this table to focus our effort
in the coming months. Not 100%, but high priority.
* sylvaing would be interested to see browser vendor responses vs.
everyone else
* sylvaing (everone else including browser vendors i.e. browser makers
compared to all)
chris: typically the conf call agenda is just whatever has been talked
about this week. Will this change to have the top-priority things
showing up, even with just a progress report request?
glazou: I think it might change a little bit, but not much.
glazou: But like, if we have a request for 20 minutes for OM Values or
something, not much chance, unless we just have a slow week.
chris: Maybe a monthly roundup of all the major specs?
dbaron: If we spend conf time on regular "simple updates", I think it's
a waste of conf call time, and will stop attending conf calls.
I've done it in the past when we'd done something like this.
stearns: One thing that could take up conf time if the survey hasn't
gotten any updates in six months or something.
dbaron: We could have something on the agenda that points to a wiki
page and requests updates, for example.
dbaron: Even brainstorming is sometimes okay. But it's the repeated
"no updates this week" for 15 minutes each week.
stearns: I was more thinking of public shaming to induce people to work
on it.
dbaron: Not a good use of conf call time. Do it in email.
hober: Or Twitter.
fantasai: On the topic of the top 3 specs, what *is* the hold up?
arronei: I know one of the specs has a bunch of open issues.
<sylvaing> Animations/Transitions have 30 open issues each (vs. 60-80
a year ago). Need to work through them.
<TabAtkins> We were going to discuss adding me as a co-editor, so
dbaron wanted you here to help.
[side discussion of when to schedule discussions; preferably when
Dean and smfr are around]
* sylvaing open css3-animations issues
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=CSS&component=Animations&resolution=---&list_id=1151
* sylvaing tracking progress by spec section here
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Akz3Ts2PEQF2DFVua2toVjBtam9rd3h4LXJSTVdCV2c#gid=0
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 06:37:19 UTC