One of the things we wanted to be impatient about was we wanted to get things more agile starting things in the W3C. We started the community group concept, which makes it really easy to start new things. We introduced this in August. We have over 50 community groups. What it means is that we have a very patient process to be sure something is ready to be called a standard. And we have a very immediate process whereby any of our stakeholders can step up and say, "We need to start moving something fast."It's great Facebook could move on this, together with their 30-plus partners. It's an illustration of what could not have been possible a year ago. Our standard process is a consensus to do everything. This allows people to jump out there and say, "Here's a need, we're going to address it as a community group." That's what FB did. There's no question that Facebook is exhibiting leadership in doing this. They're doing it together with community of like-minded individuals, but obviously they're taking the lead, and they deserve a lot of credit for that.
So this isn't a formal standards process yet, This is a maybe-it-it'll-turn-into-a-standard process.Right, Community groups'..recommendations are not formal W3C recommendations, Those recommendations take place when the entire community gets a chance to weigh in, That's the working group process, At the appropriate time, we'll take the output of this community group, and there's apple - iphone x silicone case - white a good chance we'll put it into a working group, If it's done well, it'll sail through, Are there other profile efforts at the W3C besides Facebook's? When I heard about profiles I immediately started thinking of the Java Community Process, with J2ME and this profile, that profile, Connected Limited Device -- I can't remember all the different ones, It was a mess, People were trying to assemble a collection of different interfaces, This bundle is this profile, that bundle is that profile, Does that answer a need in the marketplace?One thing that's driving this need, in all candor, is that Web standards tend to move very fast, and as a consequence, it's not the case that every implementation is in perfect lockstep, That fragmentation is what [Facebook CTO Bret Taylor] called out in his announcement, Having a profile to balance the fragmentation -- to say here's a big piece of the market that we're all going to do the same way -- is extremely valuable, At the end, whether we need one mobile profile or two or six or seven, that's in front of us, That's the kind of thing that might be done in the working group..
Another big issue that's been causing a lot of angst in the Web standards world is this issue of prefixes with WebKit. [Prefixes are used on Web pages to target specific browser engines that support new features still in testing phase; at issue is whether prefixed CSS features are in effect becoming standards without being standardized so all browsers can benefit.] Daniel Glazman [CSS working group co-chairman] kind of went ballistic. He got some sympathy, but he also got some pushback. What do you think about prefixes as a way to develop new Web standards features, and what do you think specifically about the CSS WebKit situation?With Web development, we're always balancing innovation with standardization. We need some mechanism that support innovation, and some way of having adoption of new concepts while they're on the track to standardization. Prefixes have been used for some time. I think they're a valid and effective means to do it.
A challenge that we've had in CSS is that some functions, which today are not yet standard but are supported in apple - iphone x silicone case - white a widespread fashion in prefixes, are really ready for standardization, The dialog that took place early this month drove an emerging consensus within the working group that there's an opportunity to move faster in standardizing some of the things that are currently prefixed, To the extent we do this, that's going to settle down some of the discomfort, You start by prefixing when you're in the innovation phase, When you get wide enough acceptance for it to be a standard, it's time to cut over and move to a non-prefixed standard..
One of the specific complaints is that Apple doesn't have enough people working on those standards -- they create some new standard but then they don't hand it off. Are you leaning on them to say ahem, you're breaking the standards process? You have non-WebKit browsers threatening to use WebKit prefixes, which seems like a pretty broken solution to the problem.What makes things most successful is when people bring their ideas to W3C. My sense is that, as the person who has responsibility for the W3C, I'd love it if we had maximum participation from all the vendors. On the other hand, it's a volunteer organization. On balance we do quite well.
Copyright © 2019 www.ormatorino.it. All Rights Reserved