W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2014

RE: [css-experimental] catch-all place for new spec ideas

From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 13:01:48 +0200
Message-ID: <DUB404-EAS3756639D0125765B06F05C2A53C0@phx.gbl>
To: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
One thing I like about The-Organization-You-Shouldn't-Name specs is there's a badge before each feature telling whether the feature is ready for implementation and if so which browsers have it working already. We should maybe include that in ED/WD css specs.

(sorry for top posting, sent from my phone)

________________________________
De : Sebastian Zartner<mailto:sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
Envoyé : ‎21-‎05-‎14 09:06
À : Tab Atkins Jr.<mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc : John Daggett<mailto:jdaggett@mozilla.com>; www-style list<mailto:www-style@w3.org>
Objet : Re: [css-experimental] catch-all place for new spec ideas

On 21 May 2014 06:41, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:21 AM, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
> wrote:
> > Looking over CSS drafts these days, something that strikes me is that
> it's often hard to distinguish experimental feature proposals from ones
> that are intended for actual implementation and usage.  I think it creates
> confusion to have new properties listed in specs labeled "CSS3 XXX" or
> "CSS4 YYY" when those are really pie-in-the-sky items unlikely to ever see
> the light of day.
> >
> > I think it might be interesting to have an explicit "spec" labeled "CSS
> Experimental" for containing various ideas that haven't been quite flushed
> out or need more work.  Having them all together would help in curation
> too. Related features belonging in different modules could be grouped
> together.
> >
> > Keeping features in a catch-all bucket like this makes it clear to
> authors that these features are experimental.  For implementors, it
> provides a simpler way of discovering existing ideas for solving given
> problems.
>
> I don't think it makes much sense to have a ton of unrelated features
> thrown into a single spec just to indicate they're "experimental".
> Why not just figure out a way to better indicate that some feature is
> experimental?
>
> For example, we could add a small "Under Construction" icon next to
> the headings of experimental sections.  Would be easy to build into
> Bikeshed.
>

Totally agree with Tab.

If there's a need for having all at one place, though, there could be a
summary somewhere linking to these experimental specs.

Sebastian
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2014 11:03:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:27 UTC