W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-colloquial@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Group merge?

From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:26:34 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEncD4cVPS3iF-Adc=G9bta5YU=QPHbdnTY2FxLiNbgPYS3c0A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Colloquial Web Group <public-colloquial@w3.org>
On 9 November 2011 15:08, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

>> Think how this might have been interpreted had it come from
>> a man in the street?
>> Troll, dismiss.
>
> Right, but Google is not just some man on the street - and I think their intentions to support RDFa where pure. I think it would be pretty easy to replicate what google found in a usability study (or by crawling known sites)…

In which case why are they reluctant to share their knowledge?



>> >
>> > These sorts of conversations put W3C WGs in incredibly awkward
>> > positions. We can choose to ignore the input, but at the peril of Google
>> > not supporting the technology - no group can afford to say no to Google.
>>
>>
>>
>> Big -1. They are a big internet player. No more.
>> I prefer democracy. Otherwise we start to see the Hixie effect.
>
> I'm not sure what the "Hixie effect" is. However, if you are talking about the HTML5 process, yeah, it's a little out of the ordinary: but the fact that we now have a fairly complete spec, implemented and widely deployed, is a testament to the process. After all, the point of making standards is getting them implemented in an interoperable manner above all else.

I'll simply disagree on this point Marcos. Except that it is testament
to a process
wholly driven by Google.




>>
>> >
>> > This is a problem for the RDFa WG because we have now put the RDFa 1.1
>> > Last Call on hold /indefinitely/ until somebody can dig up some data to
>> > prove or disprove Google's claim.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is theirs a one off view, or supported by others in the WG?
>
> I think this was the right thing to do.

I don't think that answers the question above and I don't understand
the answer.


>>
>> >
>> > I'm going to publicize this post tomorrow at 10am, launching the Data
>> > Driven Standards Community Group:
>> >
>> > http://manu.sporny.org/2011/data-driven-standards/
>> >
>> > I'd like to see this group merge into the Data-Driven Standards group.
>> > The only reason for the migration from this group to the Data-Driven
>> > Standards Group is the name (I did a quick poll among a number of people
>> > and asked them to describe what the "Colloquial Web" group did vs. the
>> > Data Driven Standards group). A number of people (non-native English
>> > speakers) didn't understand the nuances of what "Colloquial" meant and
>> > the ones that did, thought that "Data Driven Standards" was a better name.
>>
>> English is a funny language like that. When the message sent is not
>> the message received, there will be problems.


>>
>> > Everything else on how this group operates would stay the same - Dave
>> > would continue to chair. We just need to get the group setup and
>> > launched quickly... we have a definite set of work that needs to be done
>> > and a fairly short timeframe to accomplish it in.
>>
>> I don't understand that statement.
>> Which 'we'
>> What 'set of work'?
>> Will you be expanding on that tomorrow (today?)


I haven't seen any response to this question either.
Without knowing the 'set of work' to which you refer?




>> My primary concern is the mimimal input on this group, based on
>> which a merger would make sense.
>
> I agree. The merger makes sense (even if it means disbanding this group and moving our bodies over to the other group). It's not big deal to do that as we have not started any work formally here.


Agreed. Given motive for each of the people who signed up to this list?
Please would you post your goals/deliverables from the DDS group.


regards



-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2011 15:27:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 November 2011 15:27:12 GMT