W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Ian's Approach to Editing (Was: using an attribute to categorize the @alt state)

From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:59:37 +0100
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070817085937.GG10695@stripey.com>

Robert Burns writes:

> On Aug 16, 2007, at 4:50 PM, Jon Barnett wrote:
> 
> > On 8/16/07, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > This is example example where  Ian hasn't even taken his own
> > > advice.  He has rightly suggested that we all focus on problems
> > > statements and use- cases.  The changes he's made to the draft
> > > certainly reflect an important problem-statement /use-case.
> > > However, the solution fails to  benefit from the WG process.
> > 
> > In case you haven't seen it, this is Hixie's message tot he WHATWG
> > list:
> > http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-August/
> > 012378.html It's just a response to various messages to the WHATWG
> > list, but it shows some of the reasons for the latest changes.
> > 
> > As a result, we now have a draft that is a much better starting point
> > for discussion than before.
> 
> We voted on a document for a starting point and gained consensus in
> the group for a starting point. Its in appropriate to change that
> starting point after that fact. The edits to the draft from this
> point on should reflect the HTML WG.

Ian made clear what his approach would be back in April before he was
appointed as editor, for example:

  I don't really understand what this means either. If I am to be
  editor, I will take input from many sources -- I won't only take input
  from this working group, ignoring blogs, forums, bug databases, etc --
  as I have previously indicated. I don't see how this would not mean
  that we don't "own" the specification. I wouldn't want to be an editor
  if the operating model is that the editor merely waits for formal
  decisions before making any changes -- such a development model would
  change our timeline from 15-years-to-REC to something more on the
  order of 50-years-to-REC, and would be far to stressful an environment
  for me.

  -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1241.html

> The WhatWG needs to be put on the back burner now.

Ian has a backlog of comments which have been made to WhatWG, many from
before this working group existed.  It would seem foolish for any value
in those comments to be completely ignored.

And Ian clearly stated to this list, again before he was appointed as
editor, why he would not do that:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0071.html

> We didn't adopt a dynamic WhatWG HTML5 draft  back in May. We adopted
> a specific version of the draft.

That's true, but we also adopted an editor who was open about how he
would continue to edit the draft spec.

It seems to me that he's behaved as he said he would.

> If Ian doesn't see the types of discussion  here he wants to see, then
> he should prod us to start those discussions.

Surely his recent changes to the alt attribute part of the spec have
prodded this working group into discussing that point?  The spec is
still only in draft; the fact that Ian has made some changes based on
feedback he's already received doesn't preclude further changes based on
discussion here.

Smylers
Received on Friday, 17 August 2007 08:59:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:04 GMT