Tab, Thanks for going to effort of providing some clear and detailed notes
about this.
I think the rest of the committee could learn from this account, and perhaps
consider theres a lot more to communication than editing a live-spec and
dumping it into the mailing list.
On 22/05/2012, at 10
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Mathew Marquis wrote:
>>> I don’t think this is the case. The public has largely resigned this to
>>> “`srcset` is happening because the WHATWG said so,” for certain, and that
>>> doesn’t seem entirely false—but I don’t think “hopeless acceptance” is the
>>> sit
>>
>> I don’t think this is the case. The public has largely resigned this to
>> “`srcset` is happening because the WHATWG said so,” for certain, and that
>> doesn’t seem entirely false—but I don’t think “hopeless acceptance” is the
>> situation at present. I’ve been off the grid for a few days
I don't wish to get into "he said/she said" discussions, but your
email contains some incorrect characterizations. The mailing list
contains all the relevant history of the discussion for anyone wishing
to verify it for themselves.
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Mathew Marquis wrote:
> Well, i
Well, if nothing else, I can certainly speak to the Community Group’s
frustration on this subject — and to a lesser extent, the development community
in general.
> However, it still looks like the most upsetting implication of his
> timeline, namely that the WHATWG is prioritizing implementors o
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 4:03 PM, brenton strine
wrote:
> However, it still looks like the most upsetting implication of his
> timeline, namely that the WHATWG is prioritizing implementors over
> authors, remains unclarified. Is it a misconception to say that the
> levels of priority outlined in th
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
> I've been doing a lot of work today correcting misconceptions about
> the Responsive Images proposal that Hixie put into the spec today. I
> was pretty astonished at how much misinformation was flying around;
> what's worse, this sort of
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Bruce Lawson wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 01:16:52 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr.
> wrote:
>
> I believe the CG rules
>>>
>>> would not allow an employee of a W3C Member company to be a "free agent"
>>> though.
>
>
> It appears not. I tried to join the responsive images C
On Fri, 18 May 2012 01:16:52 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr.
wrote:
I believe the CG rules
would not allow an employee of a W3C Member company to be a "free
agent" though.
It appears not. I tried to join the responsive images CG as "just me" as
I'm interested, but not representing Opera, and don'
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> CGs actually have very little patent obligation compared to W3C Working
> Groups, so Apple has lighter weight approval for those than for WGs. Perhaps
> Google could consider the same thing. I believe the CG rules would not allow
> an
On May 17, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On 17 May 2012 19:15, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Matthew Wilcox
>> wrote:
A few humble thoughts
-Have the CG recruit an experienced implementor or editor to
participate more or less from
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On 17 May 2012 18:49, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
>> It's easy to see how the experience you describe below would be
>> frustrating. FWIW, I routinely feel frustration at seemingly wasted
>> time.
>>
>> Unfortunately, it's inescapable that rea
On 17 May 2012 19:15, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Matthew Wilcox
> wrote:
>>> A few humble thoughts
>>>
>>> -Have the CG recruit an experienced implementor or editor to
>>> participate more or less from the beginning. This may short-circuit
>>> time spent on solutio
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> A few humble thoughts
>>
>> -Have the CG recruit an experienced implementor or editor to
>> participate more or less from the beginning. This may short-circuit
>> time spent on solutions that won't work for esoteric reasons, and
>> there w
On 17 May 2012 18:49, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
> It's easy to see how the experience you describe below would be
> frustrating. FWIW, I routinely feel frustration at seemingly wasted
> time.
>
> Unfortunately, it's inescapable that reaching consensus can be
> exhausting, especially via email -- and
It's easy to see how the experience you describe below would be
frustrating. FWIW, I routinely feel frustration at seemingly wasted
time.
Unfortunately, it's inescapable that reaching consensus can be
exhausting, especially via email -- and doing so always requires
re-explaining the same thing mul
On 17 May 2012 17:00, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
> As a UA "implementor", this seem to me to be purely a success story
> for the single reason that it drew so much developer participation.
>
> Regardless of what makes it into the spec, the worst possible outcome
> would be if the developer community
As a UA "implementor", this seem to me to be purely a success story
for the single reason that it drew so much developer participation.
Regardless of what makes it into the spec, the worst possible outcome
would be if the developer community learned the lesson that UA
implementors are hostile to/d
On 17 May 2012 16:07, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:18 AM, James Graham wrote:
>> FWIW I think that forming community groups that are limited in scope to
>> gathering and distilling the relevant use cases could be a functional way of
>> working. For example if, in this case, p
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:18 AM, James Graham wrote:
> FWIW I think that forming community groups that are limited in scope to
> gathering and distilling the relevant use cases could be a functional way of
> working. For example if, in this case, people had said "we will form a group
> that will s
>> WHATWG does not exist to be a closed society.
>
> (Is this a joke? This is probably the most open and approachable spec
> development community in existance today.)
"This is probably the best square wheel there is today" does not make
it a good wheel, even if it's better than all the other squ
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Ben Schwarz wrote:
> Non announcement _here_ is one thing, sure; but as those aiming to plan,
> test and measure different approaches, it's your role to research other
> developments out side of the WHATWG bubble.
>
As you must know, the srcset design did take th
Non announcement _here_ is one thing, sure; but as those aiming to plan, test
and measure different approaches, it's your role to research other developments
out side of the WHATWG bubble.
WHATWG does not exist to be a closed society.
On 17/05/2012, at 6:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>
On Wed, 16 May 2012, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
The downside of the CG as executed is that it was much less successful
in attracting browser implementor feedback (in part because it was
apparently not advertised in places frequented by brow
On May 16, 2012, at 10:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> I agree that there's no obligation. And I agree that if people here
> didn't know about the existence of the CG then of course it's not
> surprising that we didn't engage with the work that was happening
> there.
>
> However I was under th
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> I just wanted to correct one small thing here.
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
(
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> The downside of the CG as executed is that it was much less successful
> in attracting browser implementor feedback (in part because it was
> apparently not advertised in places frequented by browser standards
> people). So the implemen
On May 16, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> I just wanted to correct one small thing here.
>>
>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> (The difference that the w3c lists were private is not really a
>>>
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> I just wanted to correct one small thing here.
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> (The difference that the w3c lists were private is not really a
>> meaningful difference if we're telling people to join CGs and
I just wanted to correct one small thing here.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> (The difference that the w3c lists were private is not really a
> meaningful difference if we're telling people to join CGs and do
> development there).
"We" have not done that, but unfortunat
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> I've been doing a lot of work today correcting misconceptions about
> the Responsive Images proposal that Hixie put into the spec today. I
> was pretty astonished at how much misinformation was flying around;
> what's worse, this sort of m
Thank you for the well written email.
On Wed, 16 May 2012 09:13:01 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr.
wrote:
3. "@srcset doesn't have good fallback behavior". Yup, it does. The
simplest way is to just do the simplest thing: provide both a @src and
a @srcset, and that's it. This has good behavior in legac
Am 16.05.2012 um 09:13 schrieb Tab Atkins Jr.:
> I've been doing a lot of work today correcting misconceptions about
> the Responsive Images proposal that Hixie put into the spec today. I
> was pretty astonished at how much misinformation was flying around;
> what's worse, this sort of misinformat
On Wed, 16 May 2012 09:42:46 +0200, Chris Heilmann
wrote:
style="display:none;">
So we praise the terse syntax of it and then offer a NOSCRIPT for
backwards compatibility? Now that is a real step back in my opinion.
Please, read Tab's full email. No need to willfully mislead people just to
style="display:none;">
So we praise the terse syntax of it and then offer a NOSCRIPT for
backwards compatibility? Now that is a real step back in my opinion.
35 matches
Mail list logo
