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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:21:01 +0200
Message-ID: <4A768FDD.5030300@gmx.de>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
CC: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, 'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'W3C WAI-XTECH' <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>  From my perspective, it seems that, despite knowing that the issue will 
> remain open and that any outcome is possible in the future, your 
> motivation for taking this route is to circumvent the process that has 
> so far been applied to every other feature either added to or rejected 
> from the spec.
> ...

A process which is not the W3C process.

> What I do not understand is why it is so important for you to achieve 
> this minor victory of having @summary at least temporarily reinstated 
> now knowing full well that it stands every chance of being overturned 
> based on new evidence in a subsequent draft once this issue really is 
> resolved.  Likewise, the text in Hixie's current draft also stands equal 
> chance of being overturned based on new evidence.

You are missing something important: previous "evidence" was *not* 
generally accepted as sufficient. Furthermore, even if we had that 
evidence, many claim that a new spec then needs to propose a 
*replacement* for summary, which is not the case so far.

> So far, it seems you've done a lot of complaining about how you claim 
> the draft simply reflects Hixie's own opinion, but yet don't seem to 
> consider it hypocritical that the draft you have proposed merely 
> reflects your personal opinion.

It does reflect my opinion as well.

I assume a similar poll could be done with respect to @profile, for example.

> Personally, it is of little concern to me in what state the summary 
> attribute is in the upcoming Working Draft. I believe it is more 
> important continue investigating the issue in terms of research and 
> evidence, rather than bickering about what one Working Draft, published 
> solely to meet the heartbeat requirement, says, and using subversive 
> tactics to get your way.

With each WD we are getting closer to LC (hopefully), and at some point 
of time we need to figure out a way to resolve controversial issues. 
Better do it now. Actually, we better had that done months ago.

> ...

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 07:21:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:50 UTC