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

Re: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:10:43 +0100
Message-ID: <4921F9F3.80602@gmx.de>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>

Jonas Sicking wrote:
> ...
> I think that if we make the order something like
> 
> 1) Find someone else to deal with portion X
> 2) Verify that this person understands the HTML 5 charter and the HTML
>    design principles and agrees to honor them.
> 3) Let this new person publish a draft for this portion
> 4) Verify that the new draft defines X as well or better than what is
>    in the HTML 5 spec today.
> 5) Verify that the new draft is being edited as effectively as portion X
>    in HTML 5 spec is today by Ian.
> 6) Remove the relevant sections from the HTML5 spec.
> 
> we can be fairly sure that there is a net gain. Though of course the 
> bigger portion X is the more sure we will have to be that the editor 
> won't drop the job on the floor as has happened several times in the 
> past once the editors realized the scope of the work involved.

Again: the # of authors is orthogonal to the # of specs. Multiple 
authors can edit a single spec (with coordination), but also a single 
author can edit multiple specs.

Furthermore, the checklist you suggest seems to be written with the 
intent of discouraging anybody coming up.

The working group should make a decision whether a split is feasible and 
a good thing to do, and then should select one or multiple editors. But 
"go ahead, waste your time, until we'll tell you that you're not a 
second Ian after all" will not fly.

IMHO.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 14:46:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:59 UTC