Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-02-06

David Singer wrote:
> I regret I am at an MPEG meeting and cannot dial in, as discussions are 
> ongoing...
> 
> On the spec. splitting discussion, I offer the following points in an 
> attempt to clear at least my mind:
> 
> * on literally splitting up the spec. that currently exists, and having 
> multiple editors and/or published documents, I believe the editor (Ian) 
> thinks this is more work rather than less, and doesn't advance things, 
> and I tend to defer to him;
> * on whether the 'base material' of the current single monolith could be 
> 'profiled/reduced' by automated pre-processing so as to make documents 
> better suited to various audiences, I think the answer is yes, and this 
> seems like a nice idea, worth pursuing;
> * on whether there should be additional, non-normative, documents that 
> help inform, educate, or assist various communities, I think there is 
> enthusiastic support and little opposition;  the more we help and 
> inform, the better!
> * on whether the 'reference', complete, normative spec. is likely to be 
> indigestible, I tend to think so, but it should exist;
> 
> I think the remaining unease concerns whether there should be multiple 
> documents, independently produced (i.e. not derived by an automated 
> process from a common base), that overlap and all/both are normative.  I 
> think this causes a number of people significant unease.  That unease 
> results in the suggestion that if we put another document on a track to 
> publication, we make it clear either that it's intended to be published 
> as informative, or that its final publication status is undecided while 
> we grapple with this issue.  We should not have an implied decision of 
> normativity result from an explicit decision to pursue publication.
> 
> Hope that helps;  feel free to ignore me if not...

I don't intent to allow much time for discussion on this topic in 
today's call.  Mike has the task of enlisting at least two other 
independent people who will commit to working on the spec in some 
manner, at which point we will see if a poll is necessary (I hope not 
but I expect so).  Once that process is complete, we'll make an 
assessment as to how to proceed.

Three points I'd like to address in your email.

I disagree with the presumption of there being *the* (as in singular) 
editor for this working group.  This working group must either decide to 
significantly curtail the discretion it affords to *the* editor, permit 
multiple editors to exist with equivalent amounts of discretion, or face 
the rather significant possibility that the levels of consensus that the 
W3C requires for Last Call and beyond may never be within reach.

Secondly, the notion that a document is being developed with the 
intention of being normative but may be marked as non-normative for the 
moment in order to progress further down the process does not settle 
well with me.  To use your word, it makes me "uneasy".  If the intent is 
to be normative, I say let the document say so plainly and clearly. 
Meanwhile I would like to give everybody who might disagree with either 
some aspect the overall direction a document a document is taking an 
opportunity to contribute a succinct, and neutrally worded, description 
of the issue to be included in the document itself.  And I would like to 
apply that rule to all documents this working group produces.  In short: 
agree with the suggestion that you close your email with.

And, thirdly, the idea that the base material can be profiled is, at 
best, unproven.  If somebody is willing to step up and do that work, I 
would do everything I can to support having this working group evaluate 
the results of that effort.  But until such results are produced, the 
current state is that such an effort might not be feasible and that 
there are no current plans to do the work.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 13:50:20 UTC