“I think that’s an unfair statement to make, as these sort things start life as propriety implementations. Once it becomes a candidate recommendation other browser vendors are much more likely to add the functionality.”
Yours is exactly the mistake I made when I first imagined how the W3C’s standards process works. Instead, the CSS Working Group is not an innovation body, it’s a standards body who’s job it is to standardise browser makers’ implementations of CSS.
The working group is a battleground where browser makers push their own commercial agendas to make their implementations the standard. In this case, Webkit is already being followed closely by Mozilla and Opera too plans to be more progressive with Presto 2.3 — good for them.
When the W3C can see commonality in various browser maker implementations, then it is on it’s way to being a standard, not the other way around.
Andy Clarke
@Ryan Seddon
“I think that’s an unfair statement to make, as these sort things start life as propriety implementations. Once it becomes a candidate recommendation other browser vendors are much more likely to add the functionality.”
Yours is exactly the mistake I made when I first imagined how the W3C’s standards process works. Instead, the CSS Working Group is not an innovation body, it’s a standards body who’s job it is to standardise browser makers’ implementations of CSS.
The working group is a battleground where browser makers push their own commercial agendas to make their implementations the standard. In this case, Webkit is already being followed closely by Mozilla and Opera too plans to be more progressive with Presto 2.3 — good for them.
When the W3C can see commonality in various browser maker implementations, then it is on it’s way to being a standard, not the other way around.