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

Re: Forms Taskforce participation

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 05:04:36 +0200
Message-Id: <p06240616c2f1501dfd20@[]>
To: public-html@w3.org

At 21:52 -0400 UTC, on 2007-08-21, Matthew Raymond wrote:

> Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

[... perceived lack of tact]

> For me to have discussed how
> tactless everyone on the mailing list is would have been well off-topic.
> You could argue that perhaps some people on the list are less tactful
> than Gregory, but I fail to see how simply expressing my honest opinion
> makes me less tactful than the next person.

Yeah, I had meant to add that I also appreciate your candidness :) But
basically I just meant that "tact" isn't really something that can be
measured objectively. To some, what you said will probably be considered
untactful. Some may find it untactful that I go into this at all. {shrug} Who
needs tact? ;)

[... Gregory]

>> As I understand it, he's also familiar with XFORMS already.
>    With half the people in the TF practically guaranteed to be XForms
> experts, I don't see the advantage in that.

Well, I don't know if knowing XFORMS is necessarily a drawback. Could well be
the opposite. But yeah, after Maciej's explanation I now understand your
point better. I don't know what to say about it though. Even if reality is
that this is a political situation, I cannot actually say that WF2 should be
pushed as hard as XFORMS -- I have read neither yet. And while WF2 isn't even
in the W3C domain yet, I'm not sure how the HTML WG could possibly want to
favour one over the other. It's probably mostly known only by those who are
active in the WHATWG.

Hm... isn't it somewhat premature to start this Task Force before WF2 has
been moved to the W3C domain?

[Btw, I can't get a http response from whatwg.org this evening.]

>> (Then again, I haven't
>> seen much forms discussion at all on this list which makes it hard to judge
>> anyone's quality on this terrain.)
>    I posted a message called "Comments on XForms Transitional" [1],
> which was a detailed description of the XFT draft at the time. (Have
> they even updated that draft?) Not only did NO ONE reply to the message,
> but I found out later during a teleconference that the Forms WG folks
> didn't even know the message existed, in spite of the fact it had
> "XForms Transitional" in the title. Why post if no one is listening?

Possibly you were simply too fast? Looks like you posted this when the HTML
WG had just started to exist. It wasn't exactly productive at that time.

(Maybe you should post that message again when WF2 has been moved to the W3C

[... uping the number of members]

>    To me, "too big" would be greater than a dozen. Ten is probably the
> sweet spot. Alternatively, we could have "non-voting" members who
> contribute ideas but can't participate in the decision making.

The more I hear about what this Tasks Force is supposed to do ("decision
making"), the more I wonder if WF2 shouldn't first be moved to the W3c domain
and reviewed and discussed a bit. It feels uncomfortable to be 'voting' for
delegates to advocate something that has hardly been discussed here, who will
then be making decisions that will affect what can or cannot be changed later

Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2007 03:08:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC