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

Re: help navigating your HTML spec text objection?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 17:12:24 -0500
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, public-html-request@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <1178230344.16390.283.camel@dirk>

On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 12:40 -0700, John Boyer wrote:
> 
> Hi Dan, 
> 
> Thanks for considering my point of view.  I believe that considering
> the question somewhat differently is worthwhile and that I did provide
> a statement of what could change to assuage my objection to the first
> question. 
> 
> Indeed I think it would be very useful to test the waters of the
> "spirit of the charters" to see how much formal objection would result
> from the change I suggested, but I've seen enough willingness to
> collaborate in the past two days that it now seems an impasse is not
> the most likely outcome. 

Yes, I think we're making some real progress on the substance,
regardless of these formal details...

> ... the wording of the question implies that we are selecting *the*
> editors, as opposed to selecting editors. 

I think the current question is clear enough that this is not the
case; it cites the "Nomination for Co-Editor: Dave Hyatt"
thread, where I said, on behalf of myself and Chris Wilson:

"We remain open to more offers of help, should they arise over
the course of this Working Group."
 -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1356.html


> Regarding question 1,  what I requested is that the question be
> amended to ask: "Shall we adopt HTML5, WF2 and XForms as our bases for
> review?" 
> 
> That's it.  The follow-on material is already clear enough that using
> these documents as *the* basis for review does not constitute
> endorsement of the entire feature set... 
[...]
> Finally, with regard to cost, it was unclear why the above might be
> considered costly.  There does not seem to be much cost in actually
> running another questionnaire, nor in respondents answering it as the
> questions are similar.

It seems likely that substantial discussion would result from
that amendment. (The current question, which was put 27 April, is
the culmination of discussion that goes back at least as far as
the 9 April proposal and consists mainly of points of clarification.)
It's not clear that the level of consensus would be greater as a result
of several more weeks of discussion.



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 22:12:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:44 UTC