Hi, Marcos. Thanks for your feedback, though I believe it would generally be better to send such off-topic messages privately. But since your message is public, I’m forced to reply publicly as well.
thanks for putting together the sizes proposal.
The proposal has nothing to do with the
sizes HTML attribute. The proposal is about a shorthand for
height CSS properties.
the WICG is a community-driven organization, hence there are no “decision makers”
WICG is basically a discussion platform. Of course WICG itself does not have decision makers related to standards. CSSWG does (the WG members / spec editors are decision makers — some of them are here on WICG — e.g. Tab Atkins and Florian Rivoal) — that’s exactly what I meant.
The first proposal iteration posted at www-style had nothing to do with WICG at all.
if your proposal has merit, and it’s useful, then it will get traction.
This is probably not quite an accurate assumption. There are subtle, minor things that don’t get much explicit traction by non-decision-makers (especially via a specific and not yet quite popular discussion platform) while this does not mean such minor proposals are useless. BTW,
size property is already implemented via a PostCSS plugin.
I have multiple much more (to say the least) serious ideas, but it looks not making much sense to spend time to make corresponding proposals since even much more trivial proposals are ignored by decision makers.
inflammatory language like accusing the CSSWG of “selective blindness”
I have not been accusing anyone. To be clear: my comment after a month is not about just the WICG iteration of the proposal, instead it’s about both iterations made via www-style and WICG.