Re: [CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2014-03-12

I made an unfair comparison in the IRC channel yesterday during
yesterday's telcon:


On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com> wrote:
> =====FULL MINUTES BELOW======

snip

> Shadow Styling
> --------------

snip

>
>   * sylvaing_ thinks Google is welcome to ship whatever it wants.
>               And the WG is free to disagree and change its mind
>               later. Life goes on.
>   * tantek is leaning towards sylvaing_'s opinion.

That was a more accurate summary of my opinion.


However, this:

>   <tantek> Google threatening to ship reminds me of MS threatening
>            to ship years ago.

Is not a reasonable analogy to the Shadow DOM work which has now been
going on for many years *in the open*.

Apologies to Tab and others working on Shadow DOM for that unfair
comparison. Consider it retracted.


In the spirit of adding something more productive to the conversation,
all mentions/pressures of shipping aside, it does seem prudent for the
CSSWG to make efficient progress on this.

Tab,

Is there an ordered-by-proposer-preference 1..n list of proposal
summaries (combinator(s) and/or pseudos) for Shadow DOM selection?
(URL?)
(including of course an "n. insert your own new proposal here" just as
a catchall of course)

I trust your experience with working on this to provide such a list,
and with such a list reflecting a reasonable amount of consideration /
expert opinion for what are better/worse solutions (and why, even if
it's just your personal preference) - I see that as more informative
than just "can live with".

I honestly had trouble following some of the variants being tossed
around on the telcon (especially some of the new proposals that seemed
to get brought up on the call itself).

I feel like if the WG were to see such an ordered list, then it may be
easier (faster?) to build/gain consensus on a choice among them.

Thanks,

Tantek

Received on Thursday, 13 March 2014 19:01:14 UTC