- From: Daniel Trebbien <dtrebbien@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:57:58 -0400
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kanghaol@oupeng.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
Hello, As a web developer working with CSSOM View quite heavily recently, I would *love* to see more attention given to fixing the ambiguities and unspecified aspects of CSSOM View extensions (e.g. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=816238). Boris, I also think that you would make an excellent addition as co-editor, or at least someone helping to make the spec more rigorous. Your input would be greatly appreciated. On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > Boris would also be a great addition as co-editor on either or both specs. > Boris, what say you? > > G. > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kanghaol@oupeng.com> > wrote: >> >> (13/03/08 17:39), Simon Pieters wrote: >> > I'm considering the possibility of becoming an editor for CSSOM and >> > CSSOM View. I'd like to hear what the WG and the current editors think >> > of that. >> >> I am not an editor nor an active contributor of this spec but I noticed >> that Boris expressed interest[1] in editing these. This is somewhat >> exciting because I can imagine Boris bringing the level of rigor of the >> HTML spec to CSS, which are known to be quite vague in general. I know >> over-specifying stuff isn't a good thing, but I still don't know what's >> wrong in marking some of the arguable behaviors "undefined". >> >> That's just some personal thoughts here. Having multiple editors is >> certainly not a bad thing. Simon's specs are more rigorous than the >> average among CSS specs too. >> >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jan/0472 >> >> >> Cheers, >> Kenny >> -- >> Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing >> Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/ >> >
Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 12:58:31 UTC