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

Re: My position (was RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2)

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 15:19:17 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270908021319u1c883603rbf3b8d997c419462@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, judy@w3c.org, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
>
>> Or are you saying both drafts will co-exist on the front page?
>
> My understanding of the issue is that the group is trying to provisionally
> decide between "obsolete" and "deprecated".  That sounds like a binary
> choice to me.  But I may have misunderstood John's objection.  Similarly, if
> you object to only have two options, and intend to express a preference for
> publishing both side by side, simply object at this time, and I will add a
> third option to the poll.  This offer is open to anyone.
>

This is a bad way to address the fact that deprecated and obsolete are
badly handled in the HTML 5 document.

> But until I hear such an objection, my current plans are to proceed with a
> poll as to which of the two documents to publish at this time.
>


Of course, once published, then an editor could come along immediately
and make edits to the document, changing whatever we just voted on,
because we're voting on the document, not whether summary should be
kept or not, or that the document needs to improve its text on
deprecated and obsolete.


>> Does the vote also encompass adding John formally as a co-editor, too?
>
> I have no idea what formally means in this context.  I guess that if a
> document ends up being placed on the W3C site which includes John's name as
> an editor, he is certainly entitled able to make factually true statements
> about that document's existence.
>
> I will note that no matter how this goes, John is under no obligation to
> continue to participate (though it goes without saying that he not only is
> welcome to do so, he is positively encouraged to do so).  I also hope that
> he will share with others his experiences he had with the process.
>

But will he be able to then go in and edit the document, at will?
One's name on a document means nothing, it's the ability to effect
change is what matters.


>>> My intent is to allow both to make changes, either editorial (e.g. the
>>> spelling of Braille) or substantive (possibly towards either clarifying or
>>> closing the differences between the two approaches).  Either will be able to
>>> select individual diffs to include from the other if they so chose (e.g., if
>>> Ian makes unrelated changes, John may elect to pick them up).
>>
>> Is this changing all coming about before a vote or after?
>
> I'm going to operate under the assumption that we are all adults here. If
> somebody notes a spelling mistake, and that is corrected before the final
> publishing, I'm OK with that.  Or, if you happen to (for example) notice
> something that either missed that needs to be corrected, I'm OK with that
> too.
>


Oh, no, I think things are interesting enough without adding anything
additional.


> If, on the other hand, if after the vote begins, either attempt to remove
> the class=XXX box that indicates that this is controversial, I will simply
> proceed with the last revision before this change is made.
>
> But, to be honest, I'm not all that worried about it.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> (*) If you prefer, you can chose to vote based on Ian's taken on the issue:
>
>  http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090604#l-948
>
> Or John's (scroll to the bottom):
>
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0080.html
>
> As for me, I have no interest in creating push polls.  To my eyes, even
> John's description of his changes are suspect as they are express his
> interpretation of his changes as seen through the lens of his personal
> experiences.
>
>

Shelley
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 20:20:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT