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

RE: SVGWG SVG-in-HTML proposal (Was: ISSUE-41: Decentralized extensibility)

From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:56:21 -0400
To: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <020801c8f286$b8a35330$29e9f990$@com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Ian Hickson
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:22 PM
> To: Sam Ruby
> Cc: HTML WG
> Subject: Re: SVGWG SVG-in-HTML proposal (Was: ISSUE-41: Decentralized
> extensibility)
> 
> 
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > >
> > > But I've already explained this many times before, so I don't know
> why
> > > you keep bringing this up.
> >
> > Perhaps it is because (and this is from your later reply to Jeff[1]):
> > [...]
> >
> > As an outside observer, what I observe is that somehow assumptions
> > become crystalized into decisions, at times with little or no
> visibility
> > being provided into the process.
> 
> It's certainly true that I don't document all the reasoning that goes
> into
> HTML5. I agree that it would be great if it was all documented.
> Unfortunately I simply don't have the bandwidth to document everything.
> Typically a cursory explanation is given in the e-mails I send out
> (e.g.
> the one that I sent to this very list in which I replied to over 600
> e-mails on the subject of supporting non-HTML vocabularies earlier this
> year), but that typically only contains a small fraction of the
> complete
> reasoning. To be honest, my hands hurt enough just from writing
> everything
> that ends up in the spec and from replying to the e-mails that I can't
> imagine how much they would hurt if I had to document everything I
> considered and rejected, all the tests I experimented with, etc. We're
> probably talking tens of thousands of pages of documentation here.
> 
> Just because it's not documented doesn't mean it wasn't considered
> carefully, though. Maybe next time we meet in person we can spend a few
> hours going through the process of considering the proposals you have
> raised, and then you can document the reasoning for me? That would be
> very
> helpful, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in it.

Wasn't one of your major objections to the ARIA proposal the lack of
transparency in their process?

Specifically quoting:
> There are three issues blocking the adoption of ARIA proposals in HTML5:
> 
>  1. ARIA isn't being developed in the open. It is unlikely that we would 
>     adopt wholesale anything that wasn't developed in a completely open 
>     manner, with open public participation and a completely public 
>     feedback loop. I mentioned this in:
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/2008AprJun/0004.htm
l

I think that the group would appreciate an explanation that helps us to
understand why the base assumptions of HTML 5 can be "considered carefully"
but "not documented", but we won't work with another group that is
transparent?

Thanks!

J.Ja
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 20:57:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:19 GMT