W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > June 2010

[Bug 10034] New: Document should point to significant studies that underpined decisions

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:15:37 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-10034-2486@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

           Summary: Document should point to significant studies that
                    underpined decisions
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: HTML5 differences from HTML4 (editor: Anne van
        AssignedTo: annevk@opera.com
        ReportedBy: marcosc@opera.com
         QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, annevk@opera.com

>>>>> The HTML5 draft reflects an effort, started in 2004, to study
>>>>> contemporary HTML implementations and deployed content.
>>>> Where is this study published? What methodology was used to gather the
>>>> results and draw conclusions? Where is the data available?
>>> To study something does not mean something was published:
>>> http://www.answers.com/study
>> Thanks for the link. That is true that publishing is not a
>> requirement, but then how did the working group communicate its
>> motivations for getting this work forward? To imply a "study" was
>> conducted also implies that the results of that study were
>> communicated to the community and that the community agreed that
>> something was needed.
>> If you can't produce evidence of who conducted the study and how the
>> results of that study were communicated to the community, then you
>> must remove this section.
>> If it helps jog your memory, studies where done like this one:
>> http://code.google.com/webstats/, which has evidently [1] underpinned
>> some of decisions made by the editor of HTML5 - and shared within the
>> community to sway opinion. Please reference it as at least one study.
>> [1] "http://code.google.com/webstats/" site:http://w3.org/
>> The reason it must be listed is that, as I mentioned above, people
>> should be able to ascertain the historical decisions that lead to the
>> creation of HTML5. People should also be able to scrutinize the
>> methodology and results that was used in the study (particularly the
>> one above, even if it only played a small role in the overall effort).
> It is a single sentence explaining something. Of course I know about
> /webstats/ and the tens (if not hundreds) of issues I reported with
> HTML5 over the course of five years with respect to it matching or not
> matching contemporary implementations. But this is a single sentence and
> making more out of it is not worth it. The /webstats/ document will be
> around for a long time, W3C Bugzilla will be around as long as the /TR/
> pages most likely, and the HTML and WHATWG mailing list archives
> probably too. Tons of research can be done on our research.

The paragraph above is exactly what I what I want to see in the document :)

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 09:15:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:51 UTC