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

Re: Poll on technical substance rather than procedural mechanism

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:50:04 -0400
Message-ID: <4A74C69C.9040002@intertwingly.net>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Larry Masinter wrote:
> 
> If it is clear that there is considerable disagreement
> about whether the new Working Draft is an improvement 
> from the  previous editor's draft, 

I am *not* in interested in a fishing expedition or people bringing 
forward hypothetical objections on behalf of unnamed others.

My original proposal was very simple[1].

Over the week since I proposed it, I've been collecting objections.  I 
personally disagree with nearly all of them but I have been trying to 
get people to state their objections clearly and in terms of concrete 
proposals.

The following is the list of specific objections I have heard from 
people who were willing to step forward and identify which part of the 
proposal they object to.

1) You objected to the W3C heartbeat requirement itself.  I'm sorry, not 
my jurisdiction.

2) You object to Mike's draft not being considered at the same time. I'm 
sorry, but Mike's draft isn't ready.

3) You objected to Manu's draft not being considered at the same time. 
I'm sorry, but Manu's draft isn't ready.

4) Leif objected to the characterization of SGML style PI instructions 
being no longer considered conforming in the differences document.  This 
has been resolved.

5) John continues to object to the summary attribute being considered 
obsolete.  Discussions are ongoing, John appears open to the possibility 
that this will be resolved, and John is well aware of his option to 
produce a draft to be considered either at the same time, or instead of 
Ian's draft.

6) Ben objected to a number of unnamed sections being included in the 
document on behalf of an unnamed set of individuals.  He made it clear 
that micro-data was in that set, but and did so based on the argument 
that there is a proposal in works which isn't quite ready to be 
published, and therefore micro-data shouldn't be published either.  He 
has the same options available to him as John does.

Larry, this offer is also available to you.  If you have a concrete 
objection to any specific section, please bring it forward. Alternately, 
if you have a concrete counter proposal please bring that forward.

I am not interested in hearing that people don't have enough time.  This 
heartbeat requirement has been known since before this working group was 
created, and all we are talking about is a draft which is not required 
to have consensus or even meet requirement.  Take as long as you like, 
documents can be considered out of cycle.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0706.html
Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 22:50:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:06 UTC