W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Deciding in public (Was: SVGWG SVG-in-HTML proposal)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 00:41:54 +0000 (UTC)
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Cc: 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0808010012340.3295@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> > The above e-mail, as well as the blog post to which it refers, both 
> > formed part of the great wealth of information that went into the 
> > design that currently exists in the HTML5 spec (partially commented 
> > out)
> So am I correct in assuming that that post contained new information?

I do not believe the post in question contained significant information 
that had not been considered long before it was posted, no.

> In two days, it will be a year from the date of that post. And it is 
> still the case that every element must be personally approved by you in 
> order to be valid in HTML5.

Again, while I would love to be able to claim that I had any kind of 
actual authority here, that simply isn't the case.

But nothwithsanding that, it's a *good* thing that we need wide review and 
serious thought before we extend the language that the Web is based on. 
When we don't have peer review and so forth, we end up with things like 
<marquee> or <blink>.

If the request is for a mechanism for arbitrarily extending text/html's 
vocabulary without having to go through a standards body, then I hope we 
never reach that point. The Web is too valuable.

I've said this before, for example search for "willy nilly" in:


...where I detailed the reasoning for this.

(You've responded to this saying you disagree, but that you think that 
having XHTML5 and XML which can be used with XML namespaces to extend the 
language without discussion, effectively mitigates the issue.)

> > What could I change in the way I respond to issues to make you feel 
> > like your suggestion has been seriously considered, as it indeed has?
> If you are serious in asking that question, my answer is that perhaps 
> you should consider toning down the sarcasm. And consider being a bit 
> less dismissive of others.  Not just me, but others in general.

Ok, I'll try to be less dismissive. Could you answer some of the questions 
I asked?

e.g. in:


...the following questions:

| So anyway, as editor, I now have a choice: either I ignore the evidence 
| that namespace prefixes are confusing to authors, or I don't use your 
| proposal in its entirety. What should I have done?

| Given that proposals equivalent to this one had been considered long 
| before, why should your proposal change anything?

...or in:


...the questions "How should such accomodation happen?", "How can anyone 
know?", "Is that unreasonable?", "How can we make it more obvious?" (I 
would quote the context, but that would basically just be quoting the 
entire e-mail).

...or in:


...the entire e-mail.

Or in:


...the question "Are there any proposals that show indirection 
syntax can be designed in a manner that doesn't have the problems that 
other prefix-based proposals have had?"

I've been *trying* to not be dismissive. Please allow me to ask _you_ a 
favour as well: could you reply to the questions I ask? So far, it seems 
like you only reply to the parts of the e-mails I write that are in the 
slightest bit inflamatory, and ignore all the potentially constructive 

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 1 August 2008 00:42:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:36 UTC