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

Re: Sections of the HTML5 specification being removed from the W3C without discussion

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:34:36 -0500
Message-ID: <4E6A23FC.6090001@burningbird.net>
To: public-html-comments@w3.org
I forgot to include the link to Wayne Carr's post


And I just noticed Ian Hickson's response on the differences between the 
W3C and the WHATWG documents


In particular, note the following paragraph:

"As far as I'm aware, most of the changes are either editorial issues 
driven by different opinions of what makes a good spec (e.g. the W3C 
copy omits a non-normative paragraph suggesting that browsers can apply 
image analysis heuristics to help users), or normative issues where the 
W3C decision is, as far as I'm aware, simply technically wrong or 
inferior (e.g. there was a decision relating to the term "fallback 
content" where IMHO the decision is based on an incorrect understanding 
of the term in context). The differences in the W3C HTML5 spec vs the 
WHATWG spec are always minor enough that there's not been much point me 
making a fuss over them here; it just means the W3C's spec is slightly 
less technically solid, without it seriously affecting implementations 
or interop. (The chairs are aware of a case involving another spec where 
the difference was not minor and where there therefore was a fuss caused.)"

Ian Hickson assumes he's always right, while everyone else is wrong. This is exactly the wrong kind of attitude for being a spec editor. You have to have confidence in your ability, but you also have to have a sense of perspective--enough to know you don't have all the answers. And you have to have empathy, though I realize that with some of those participating in HTML5, empathy is a dirty word.

Ian literally thinks he knows more than anyone else. In actuality, though, Ian isn't necessarily experienced enough with the web generally to have back his belief with actual fact.

You can't fix arrogance with empty procedures. All you can do is squash it like a bug: quickly and decisively.

Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 14:35:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:27 UTC