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

Re: <ruby>, etc. in HTML5

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 12:50:20 +0000
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DE97D598-4418-4C93-8F90-8DD7D29715F2@robburns.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

Hi Ian,

On May 28, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

>
> As I said in
> my last e-mail, it has never been my intent to edit the draft merely  
> to
> reflect majority opinion. It is my intent to write the spec in such  
> a way
> that it addresses the needs of the Web user and Web authoring  
> community at
> large in the best way possible.

If that is your intent, then you're failing miserably at achieving it.

> I edit the spec by taking all arguments,
> researched data, use cases, requirements, etc, into account, and by
> deriving the best possible design from that (at least to the best of  
> my
> abilities). I emphatically do _not_ take into account the number of  
> people
> who have a particular opinion.
>
> If those policies are not majority rule and consensus-driven  
> development,
> then I'm not really sure to what you are referring. Could you  
> elaborate?

I don't know where to begin. I look at the deliberations of this WG  
and I look at the current draft and I do not recognize anything that  
has taken "all arguments, researched data, use cases, requirements,  
etc into account". So as I see it, you're not following W3C principles  
nor your own stated principles. The draft appears to be simply edited  
at your own whim: bringing to bear your own often misguided opinions.  
Often times you're dismissing many use cases, arguments, researched  
data, requirements etc. simply because you don't take even a modicum  
of time to understand what others are saying to you. You frequently do  
not participate in the discussions of the WG because you seem to think  
it is beneath you. I don't see how you can ever achieve the goals and  
principles you laid out in your reply when you behave in that way.

Also, you cannot simply limit the feedback you hear to “browser  
vendors” narrowly defined. Perhaps you have no concern for the W3C  
priority of constituencies either, but that ordered list goes: users,  
authors, implementors (including among them a few browser vendors),  
spec writers. You appear to be completely reversing that.

Take care,
Rob
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 12:51:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:55 UTC