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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:22:39 -0400
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF7AFBAB1A.5FB50206-ON85257496.0074A779-85257496.00756E5B@us.ibm.com>

public-html-request@w3.org wrote on 07/30/2008 04:21:36 PM:

>
> 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.

My deepest sympathy for your hands.

To the best of my knowledge, we have never met.  I also don't believe that
meeting in persion is a prerequisite for participation in this working
group.

No matter however carefully you may have considered something, the
possibility always exists that somebody may spot something that you
initially missed.  Given that you have always envisioned a 19 or so year
process for HTML5, I only ask that all decisions be treated as provisional
until documented.>

The proposal I was interested in understanding the disposition of was
Microsoft's.  I have no doubt that early betas of IE differ from the
proposal, and that what ultimately will be included in the release will
factor in feedback and user experience.

- Sam Ruby

> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 21:51:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:56 UTC