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

uneven handling of issues

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 09:29:48 -0600
Message-ID: <4EC7CB6C.9050705@burningbird.net>
To: public-html-comments@w3.org
I appreciate the HTML WG co-chairs attempting to ensure consistent 
handling of issues with its recent feedback related to the <time> 
element [1], but have to point out how uneven the handling really is.

This item was related to <time> being pulled, which happened recently. 
Barely a week later, we seem to have gone from bug, to issue, to call 
for proposal for a changed <time> item, as well as an addition of <data> 
seemingly only to help microdata--or some such thing.

In the meantime, we still haven't resolved the concerns about longdesc 
and other long standing issues.

In addition, I've watched the number of participants in the group drop 
until about the only action we see in the HTML WG email list is bug 
reports--many of which are nothing more than hack emails because of the 
foolish comment box in the web specs--an occasional note by the 
co-chairs, and a few individuals trying to reign in an out of control 
process.

It's becoming almost impossible to follow what's happening to the HTML5 
spec now. Yet the group still continues along the pre-defined schedule, 
as if there's nothing out of the ordinary happening in the group.

There are some changes that might help tame the chaos, especially for 
those of us on the outside looking in:

First, stop posting the bug reports to the email list. Too many are 
garbage and clutter the list. And there are a significant number coming 
from kids who get a kick out of posting certain words and seeing them 
show up on the HTML WG email list.

In line with this, remove the comment box from the spec. People should 
file comments through a formal system that requires a name--either this 
email list, the HTML WG email list, or Bugzilla. After all, how can you 
verify whether a bug fix resolves the bug requestor's concern if the bug 
was submitted anonymously via a comment box?

Time to grow up  a bit, don't you think?

To ensure that people are aware of changes the editor is 
making--especially significant changes, such as the removal of 
<time>--post only bug reports that result in changes, with the 
understanding that the change can be reverted if the item was not also 
discussed in the HTML WG email list before the change was made. And 
allow those of us on the outside to also ask for a revert, since LC is 
supposedly our time to make comments.

It would help if those who file bug reports, also sent an email with 
more detail to the HTML WG, or this email list. Not for simple things 
like spelling or pure editing changes--I'm talking about changes to the 
HTML.

Second, is there anyway to post a difference annotation between the 
editor's draft and the Last Call document, so we can see the changes 
being made? If nothing else, perhaps a list of changes? Following the 
WHATWG twitter feed seems counter-intuitive, and forcing people to look 
at CVS or other logs may be all cool and geeky, but not particularly 
good communication.

Third, verify that the document will be going through Last Call again 
because of significant changes. Especially considering how many 
significant changes are being made under the radar, so to speak.

Fourth, resolve issues from latest to newest--not based on the 
requestor's HTML5 editor's favored status.

Thank you.

Shelley

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Nov/0189.html
Received on Saturday, 19 November 2011 15:30:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 19 November 2011 15:30:31 GMT