W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:07:36 -0400
Message-ID: <4A749278.3000407@digitalbazaar.com>
To: 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
John Foliot wrote:
> I have tried via this recent thread to explain why
> the current draft language is offensive (at least to me), and why I cannot
> continue to agree with how these decisions are being arrived at and
> implemented.  

I agree with many of the points that John is making. I'll also interject
that he is not the only one that finds the inclusion of language that
contradicts many years of discussion and suggested practice invalid
overnight -- it is an affront to the W3C process. I say this not because
"this is the way it's always been", but because the W3C process makes a
great deal of sense when you're attempting to get over 200 companies and
organizations to agree on a single document.

While I don't necessarily agree with some of the proposals that John and
Ben have put forward, neither of them are alone in their dislike for how
@summary, Microdata, and various other sections of HTML5 were
changed/included into the HTML5 spec.

Ian has every right to author the document as he sees fit, just as every
member in HTML WG has every right to modify and propose alternatives to
Ian's document. I think most of us want consensus on this mailing list.

I believe that part of what John and Ben's arguments highlight is that
we're not there yet and the current publishing process is sending the
wrong signal to the public: That HTML5 (as a whole) is nearing stability
(which is arguable).

Anyway, back to working on one potential solution to this problem...

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 19:08:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:49 UTC