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

Re: biased surveys and other tricks

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:24:43 +0100
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <86A2808A-8534-4B96-8457-4164DA1FDC8B@berjon.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>

On Jan 28, 2009, at 17:48 , David Singer wrote:
> B) Publish the HTML5 document as normative, and the Markup language  
> as informative
> (...)
> Are we really hearing a lot of objection to (B)?

Or simply publish it with a clear warning that the WG does not know if  
this document will end up being normative or not, but wants it out  
there because Publishing is Good. We can change our minds about its  
normativity any number of times between now and when it gets published  
as a Rec or as a WG Note. In fact, we can even change our minds again  
after that by putting the Note on the Rec track or issuing a Rescinded  
Recommendation and putting it back as a Note  the Process is fun that  
way and springs eternal in its commanding wisdom.

Working groups always get cold feet about FPWDs, even with  
uncontroversial documents, I don't know why. Publishing is good, it  
makes a milestone on which one can get perspective. In fact the  
current level of discussion on this topic makes me believe this really  
needs publishing, badly. If the document is good/bad/useful/useless/ 
harmful/benevolent/shiny/pretty-in-pink it'll be a whole lot more  
obvious in hindsight.

Just slap a <div class='scaryWarning'>The working group is in dissent  
about whether this document should be normative or simply informative,  
we welcome feedback on this issues. Read at your own risk. May contain  
heavy machinery. Do not operate nuts after reading.</div> and publish,  
publish, publish.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 20:31:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:00 UTC