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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:50:46 -0400
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF8E0ACA1B.39142DB0-ON85257497.0080A060-85257497.0082FDB0@us.ibm.com>


Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote on 07/31/2008 07:11:25 PM:

> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> > Others seem to have come to a different conclusion:
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Sep/0501.html

Hmm.  You seem to have rearranged my email.

[snip]

> 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?

[snip]

> Note, by the way, that the TAG coming to the conclusion that your post
> introduces new information is not that surprising, given that the TAG
also
> thinks that HTML5 introduces new information

Was this sarcasm really necessary?  Particularly as it contradicts the
impression you left just a few paragraphs above that suggests that the post
in question contained a "great wealth of information"?

[snip]

> (Also: wouldn't sending proposals to the working group have been better?
> How are people on the working group supposed to know you blogged?)

Just to prove that I can do sarcasm too: perhaps a few of them were reading
the mailing list.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/0134.html

Note the times on both the blog post and the mailing list post.  The reason
why I posted that on my blog is that your attitude then had me convinced
that the key aspect of the post - namely distributed extensibility - would
not be seriously considered.  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.

Ignoring every other detail of Microsoft's "Improved Namespace Support"
proposal, it does capture that one essential ingredient.

Now lets restore the question that you originally asked, but chose to elide
from my respose.

> 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.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 23:56:46 UTC

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