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

Re: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:05:32 +0000 (UTC)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0811190759110.25579@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> So an attempt to do a split should have the backing of the WG before a 
> significant amount of time is spent.

The working group, as I understand it, backs the splitting out of sections 
from HTML5. In particular, I have not heard any objections to splitting 
out items 1-9 of the following list:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Oct/0127.html

The only thing preventing this from happening is a lack of volunteers.


> The proposal I criticized was not to have a WG decision until a huge 
> amount of time was already spent by the volunteer.

Do you believe that the working group should continue to support an editor 
after that editor has shown a lack of ability to write a high quality 
specification? I certainly would hope that if I started writing complete 
gibberish in the HTML5 spec, that the working group would oust me. Indeed, 
I am relying on the fact that the working group has _not_ expelled me as 
evidence of continued overall support for my work. If I'm doing a bad job, 
or if any editor is doing a bad job, then the working group had better 
retract their support, or the Web as a whole will suffer.

Do you disagree?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 08:06:12 GMT

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