- From: Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells <Disgusted@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 14:30:43 +0100
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Laura Carlson wrote: > > On 5/29/07, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: >> One idea for a plan is to start review > > As mentioned on May 21, it may also be beneficial to come to consensus > on the Proposed HTML Design Principles [1]. That message said, > > "I disagree with you on some incentives and qualifying evidence. > Perhaps incentives as well as types of qualifying evidence should be > defined in the HTML 5 Design Principles. > > I propose that the working group discuss the HTML 5 Design Principles > as one of the next items it tackles and reaches consensus on them. Indeed. In fact, I believe that agreement (and a formal mechanism for registering dissent) is vital if this project is ever to succeed. On that basis, I go further than Laura and suggest that the HTML 5 Design Principles be not just "one of" the next items at which we look, but rather /the/ next item. The outcome of this stage should be a set of design principles on which we all agree, and which are binding on new members (that is, it should not be possible for these principles to have to be re-visited every time the group gains a new member). But since I foresee that such agreement may be hard -- probably impossible -- to achieve, I also believe that we need a formal mechanism whereby a member can register formal dissent with one or more of the agreed principles, and that an escalation procedure should be put in place whereby the W3C itself reviews any areas of dissent and affords them due weight before deciding to adopt, reject, or refer for reconsideration, the recommendations of the group. Philip Taylor
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 13:31:52 UTC