Re: [css3-page] comments on last ED

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?

You must ask the WG chairs why it was decided to not proceed to REC
from the PR.

One reason could be that we only reached two interoperable
implementations when AntennaHouse 5.3 was released with CSS support
(in April 2011, I believe) -- Prince has supported this since 2005, at
least (Bert and I used these features for our book [1]). There were
earlier implementations by HP, but they were not generally available
for testing.

  [1] http://alistapart.com/article/boom

It's not uncommon for W3C specs to take time. For example, the first
WD for media queries were published in april 2001:

  http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-mediaqueries-20020123/

Your name was added as "editor" in january 2002:

  http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-css3-mediaqueries-20020708/

The specification became a REC in june 2012:

  http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/  

I will not ask you to explain why the spec took more that ten years
(in part) under your editorhip and chairmanship; specs are hard to
make and get right, and they most often take longer than we hope.

But I will ask you to explain why you think it's "bad for the W3C
Process" that YesLogic and AntennaHouse implemented a CR?

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome

Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 15:40:38 UTC