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

Re: some thoughts on objections to publishing ""HTML 5 differences from HTML 4"

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:55:15 -0500
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0707010955l33105060o7526fc607b2d1a8b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>

On 6/29/07, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:

> First, a "No, disagree" response says
>> "Rationale based on design principles, for each and every
>> dropped/added/changed element and attribute should be supplied."
> Well, perhaps it should. By all means, please do provide it.
> But until you do, to argue against publication because it hasn't been
> provided isn't helpful.

Okay, I've started justification pages* for them in the wiki and added
links for them to the issues page [1]. The framework is now there.
"Some" rationale is there. I did my best to help set things up. But as
Rob said, I am, like most of the working group is, in the dark
regarding rationale for previous dropped/added/changed element and
attribute decisions made by WHAT WG. Therefore much is lacking.

If anyone knows of further rationale please add it. If anything needs
revision, please revise it.

> I am quite sympathetic to...
>> "In order to apply consistent decision making throughout the
>> specification, it is critical to come to consensus on the design
>> principles."
> By all means, please contribute to the design principles text(s).

Thanks. I have offered a few suggestions [2] [3] and may offer more.

> But I don't understand this as an argument against publishing
> the difference document.

Publishing the differences document before coming to consensus on the
design principles is backward.

No agreed upon principles, at best result in decisions (e.g.
dropping/adding/changing elements and attributes) without foundation.

At worst it results in arbitrary, inconsistent, injust, partial,
wrong-headed, and discriminating decisions.

Like TBL said, "design principles very hairy...journey of arriving on
consensus valuable; have whole group in on discussion, creates common
vocabulary and trust in one another..." [4]

Best Regards,

* If a wiki page already existed on the subject, I linked to that.
[1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0859.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0898.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/2007/04/26-html-wg-minutes
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2007 16:55:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:23 UTC