- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:47:30 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 22/02/13 08:32, Håkon Wium Lie wrote: > Also sprach Daniel Glazman: > > > The CSS WG is not responsible if vendors implement unstabilized features > > and if users of these vendors use the features. It says nothing about > > the quality of the solution they're using. It only says they use it. > > Good for YesLogic and AntennaHouse who shipped experimental features > > to the masses, bad for the W3C Process, something you should care about, > > right? > > This functionality went to CR more than 9 years ago: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-css3-page-20040225/ > > According to the Process document, "Candiated Recommendation" is, > specifically, a "Call for Implementations". > > http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi > > So, why do you think implementing CSS3-PAGE is bad for process? It was so stable and interoperable we're still at the same point NINE years later and we still have to edit the spec? Maybe you can explain us why we needed nine extra years with - so you said elsewhere - two interoperable implementations and why we did not get a REC let's say before 2007/2008? </Daniel>
Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 09:47:56 UTC