W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2016

Re: [css-syntax]The emperor isn't naked, but he's wearing his underpants on his head

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:42:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBNFOvk+t=g4MPL5Y11wu8M=Rf+Rb6gb9KZuZfSruqHhA@mail.gmail.com>
To: scratch65535@att.net
Cc: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 3:08 AM,  <scratch65535@att.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 17:15:35 +0000, you wrote:
>>I suggest that you try putting together a working prototype, and see if it is useful for you. Then see if it is useful to others. It's a long uphill battle to replace an entrenched technology, and some early experiments may show whether your idea is worth the effort. Radium itself had some early enthusiasm behind it, and it's been a good experiment on whether the cascade is worth the bother (My impression is this experiment has confirmed that it is).
>
> I appreciate the suggestion, Alan, but I've learned over the
> years that change only works if those with organisational
> legitimacy get behind it.  Absent that, I'm already doing all I
> can just by raising the issue.

I can tell you right now that "y'all should throw away the system
you've spent the last 20 years optimizing and having authors build a
trillion pages with, and replace it with this grossly-underspecified
handwavey idea I came up with!" is of absolutely zero value.

Alan's suggestion is correct. You're requesting browsers to take on an
*enormous* cost with zero proof that it will be worthwhile. Proving
your idea (or parts of it) on your own is the only way there's even a
chance that you'll get anything done.  You will not get anyone with
"organizational legitimacy" to back what you're presenting right now.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 7 November 2016 19:43:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:05 UTC