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

Re: biased surveys and other tricks

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:57:31 -0800
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <A936508B-C01A-4922-8FFD-437091707573@apple.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>


On Jan 28, 2009, at 9:07 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:

>
>> We seem to have the following choices:
>> A) Publish the HTML5 document and forget the Markup Language document
>> B) Publish the HTML5 document as normative, and the Markup language
>> as informative
>> C) Publish the HTML5 document as normative on semantics and
>> informative on syntax, and markup the other way
>> D) Publish them both as normative
>
> Publish the Markup Language document as FPWD, and continue to evolve  
> it in a way that leaves all 5 courses of action open.
>
> ven if the result is (A), it will help understand the organization  
> of the single document by pointing out dependencies that would  
> otherwise be hard to see.
>
> Personally, I believe (D) would be best if it is possible to do so  
> without conflicts; whether that's possible is yet to be seen, and  
> can be evaluated as we go along.

It seems to me your recommendation amounts to proceeding along course  
(D), leaving the possibility of changing course. I do not see how this  
option leaves things more open than (B) or (C); or even (A) if we  
interpret "forget" as "don't publish for now but continue to evolve  
and discuss".

Do you have an argument for why temporarily proceeding with option (D)  
is the best way to keep our options open, and not just a way to bias  
the final outcome to your preferred outcome? I am willing to hear out  
such arguments and I'm open to changing my mind on the best way to  
proceed.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 23:58:12 UTC

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