- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 13:01:48 +0200
- 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>
- Message-ID: <DUB404-EAS3756639D0125765B06F05C2A53C0@phx.gbl>
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