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

Re: Neutrality in "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4"

From: Ben 'Cerbera' Millard <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 09:54:39 +0100
Message-ID: <001b01c7bc86$a2131e70$0201a8c0@ben9xr3up2lv7v>
To: "Robert Burns" <rob@robburns.com>
Cc: "HTMLWG" <public-html@w3.org>

Robert Burns wrote:
> I can't imagine how making something secret makes it more objective.

The rationales aren't secret. You have the links to where they are.


Robert Burns wrote:
> Like with Ian, I don't understand how you're using the word 'objective'.

I'm using it to mean "a lack of bias or opinion". By reporting which 
features are currently present and which are currently absent, none of its 
content can be a matter of opinion or bias.


Robert Burns wrote:
> Rather we're suggesting that it would be helpful  foremost to this WG  
> to be able to read the methodology (the rationale) for how the various 
> decisions to add or remove facilities was arrived at.

If nobody is willing put effort into collecting them, perhaps it's not that 
big a priority to HTMLWG after all? I'm not keen on doing it. But you seem 
interested in doing it. Contribute to what you consider "foremost to this 
WG".


Robert Burns wrote:
> Ben Millard wrote:
>> * It would be even more concise if rationales were removed.
> It would be even more concise to publish nothing. Conciseness is not
necessarily our goal here.

If we publish nothing the heartbeat requirement may shut us down. So that's 
not an option, imho.

The goal, as I understand it, is to publish a short (read: concise) document 
to introduce reviewers to the feature set currently present in the HTML5 
draft and how it differs to standards they may already be familiar with 
(such as HTML4).

By keeping it short and purely factual, there shouldn't be any objections to 
it (in theory). It doesn't lock us into any particular feature set, it's 
just reporting on the set currently in the HTML5 draft.

Robert Burns wrote:
> Ben Millard wrote:
>> * It requires less editorial work if each fact it reports can stand 
>> alone.
> I'm not sure what that means. How can facts stand alone?

That's too philosophical a question for me! :-)

I simply meant the editor has to do less searching and writing if the 
differences document lists the feature set without listing rationales. Thus 
making it more likely that HTMLWG can publish it quickly and meet the 
heartbeat requirement before it's too late. (Dum dum duuum!)


Robert Burns wrote:
> Ben Millard wrote:
>> The rationales are already public. But they are buried in two  mailing 
>> lists [3][4] and some IRC archives [5] and a web forum [6]  and *at 
>> least* one blog [7]. More like 5 blogs, IIRC.
> Well those buried rationales are the facts should be included in this 
> differences document.

Maybe they'll go into a future revision of the differences document. I'd 
rather they went into a separate document or perhaps went onto the wiki. I 
have 'started the ball rolling' by showing you where they are; you could 
keep the ball rolling by gathering them up. If it's important to you, do 
something about it. :-)

Here are some of the blogs I was thinking about:

* <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
* <http://hsivonen.iki.fi/>
* <http://ln.hixie.ch/>
* <http://lachy.id.au/log/>
* <http://blog.whatwg.org/>

You'll sometimes find WHATWG contributors commenting in articles about HTML5 
on these blogs:

* <http://www.456bereastreet.com/>
* <http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/>
* <http://juicystudio.com/>
* <http://www.robertnyman.com/>
* <http://www.webstandards.org/buzz/>

Happy hunting!

Ben 'Cerbera' Millard
---------------------------------
Collections of Interesting Tables
<http://sitesurgeon.co.uk/!dev/tables/> 
Received on Monday, 2 July 2007 08:55:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:02 GMT