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

Re: ACTION-78: Suggestion text for 1.5.4

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:22:44 +0100
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.un1wf6eg64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:12:02 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> There are options other than those two, for example, the process that our
> charter describes, or asking whether anyone can find a better solution,  
> or
> asking for reasoning and objective research to back up each proposal and
> picking the option that has the most compelling arguments.
> I'm not arguing for any particular model here, merely agreeing with Henri
> about the risks posed by the "can live with" design model and other
> compromise-by-committee design models.

Sam said on IRC that "can live with" or "cannot live with" still means you  
have to back up your opinion. Also, that if you options A and B, and  
everyone live with either, the editor will get to decide which of A and B  
goes into the specification. To me this seems like effectively the same  
model approached from a different angle and is worth a shot. (Though it  
could be that I'm missing something.)

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 10:23:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:41 UTC