- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:37:13 -0800
- To: Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Cc: "Jens O. Meiert" <jens@meiert.com>, W3C WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 00:18 -0300, Jens O. Meiert wrote: >> I’m getting a little cynical maybe but I don’t recall any >> feature being *rejected* here for about ten years (with the exception >> of obvious nonsense). > > Although "obvious nonsense" is subjective I've seen features rejected at > face to face meetings. But there have been many more - I doubt many > people put much effort into remembering the paths not travelled. At least half of what I come up with gets rejected. Anyone who thinks we throw in everything that anyone suggests has a *very* subjective memory. ^_^ (Or more likely, just doesn't realize the extent to which the things they hear about are filtered, and thus subject to selection bias. Most ideas die after a single mailing list thread, or only get thrown around informally or in person and never make it to permanent W3C storage at all.) > Sometimes features might be better put into markup, or (for Web apps) > into JavaScript, and that push-back can happen too. And does, regularly. Lots of features I've proposed for CSS got pushback, and wound up being done in a slightly different (better) way in JS. For example, my attempt to explain the underlying primitives of Transitions and Animations morphed into the Web Animations spec instead. > The push for features is coming because people are suddenly using the > "open web platform" for general-purpose computing, for all sorts of new > applications and for older applications (such as making printed books) > that weren't previously being done using Web tools and technologies so > much. Yup yup. New use-cases drive new complexity. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2014 01:38:01 UTC