- From: Matthew Ratzloff <matt@builtfromsource.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
- To: public-html@w3.org
Sorry about the previous message; I accidentally sent it before I could catch it. On Wed, April 11, 2007 1:26 pm, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Apr 11, 2007, at 22:34, Matthew Ratzloff wrote: >> and discuss and adopt (or reject) the >> individual parts of #2 in a piecemeal fashion. > > I think splitting up the spec and (mostly) reassembling it isn't a > productive way of working, so I am opposed to your proposal. What is your reasoning? >> I think we can all agree that increased implementation specificity is >> desirable. On the other hand, I (and it seems some others) worry >> that it will be far more difficult to remove certain aspects once >> they're "in the spec" than it will be to adopt them one or two at a >> time. > > Do you have specific parts of the spec that you'd like to reject? Why > would you like to reject them? Examination of WHAT WG HTML changes will govern the work of this group for some time to come, so I don't think it would be useful to bring up those points now. > I am opposed to certain details of the Web Apps 1.0 draft myself, but > I trust that Hixie will properly consider my feedback--and yours also. The W3C HTML specification is determined by group consensus, not solely by the opinion of a single arbiter, no matter how influential he may be in the group. I understand what you are saying, I just disagree quite strongly with the way it is worded. :-) Furthermore, it's my opinion that the changes to HTML described in WHAT WG's specification should have to fight against inertia, not the other way around. Inertia is a powerful force. If an idea is a good one it should have no problem standing up to scrutiny. -Matt
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 22:30:30 UTC