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

Re: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification

From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:25:58 +0000
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Message-Id: <E81213E4-AF8D-45E6-A2E7-ED5BC3F83DEA@googlemail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>


On 18 Nov 2008, at 16:25, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
>> On 17 Nov 2008, at 23:10, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Furthermore, the checklist you suggest seems to be written with  
>>> the intent of discouraging anybody coming up.
>> What do you think the process should be?
>> ...
>
> Funny enough it's in the paragraph you did not quote:
>
> JR> 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.

Ah, I was meaning process in terms of more detail than what you  
propose (if this is wrong, do correct me):

1) WG makes decision on whether split is a good idea and feasible, and
2) Select editors.

Should we have something like the following:

1) WG makes decision on whether split is a good idea and feasible,
2) Select editors from volunteers (note we currently have got nowhere  
with this so far),
3) Let them edit document,
4) Review editing, and
5) Remove from HTML 5.

Note that 4) happens implicitly, and the "you're not a second Ian  
after all" state could happen even if this wasn't listed. I think all  
of us would like the best spec we could get, and if there's someone  
better willing to edit a document, it should be considered. The  
question, as I see it, is when something is removed from HTML 5.  
Removing something then re-adding it is a fair amount of work (because  
of xrefs, etc.).


--
Geoffrey Sneddon
<http://gsnedders.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 20:26:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:24 GMT