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

Re: Issues of @summary and use of data for "decisions"

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:39:46 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270906231039l3556b15k13e501f6a1743545@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
>>
>> I did mention how there is a serious disconnect between HTML 4 and
>> HTML 5 when it comes to "conformance", and how conformance is meant to
>> be interpreted by HTML authors/editors, and user agents. I mentioned
>> the disconnect between many times the user agent is also and author,
>> with a shared API/data model.
>
> I must confess that I'm not completely following what you said above.
>
> I do believe that user agents can also be authors, and some of the APIs
> designed to accompany HTML 5 appear to support that goal; that being said, I
> have yet to hear one such tool author step forward and say that they believe
> that what they are doing would be precluded by HTML 5 being adopted.
>
> As near as I can tell HTML 4 and HTML 5 have similar approaches to
> conformance.  I understand the point of view that a language with the goal
> of 100% interop no matter how ill-formed the content is is a quite different
> beast, particular with respect to author conformance requirements, than one
> that doesn't define error paths.  That being said, that point of view
> doesn't have consensus yet either.
>
> And while I see both of the above, I don't see how that related to "yanked".
>

You lost me in return.

>> We also ran into problems with the so-called "use cases" with RDFa. It
>> would seem that no use case was sufficient. This one was too long,
>> this one was too short, and so on. When we asked for examples of what
>> makes a good use case, we were given a basic shoulder shrug.
>>
>> "I dunno. I guess I'll see it when I see it."
>
> Acknowledged.
>
>> As for reason -- this group can't even agree on what to put in the
>> Best Practices document. Why? Because the so-called "best practices"
>> have been applied erratically, and, again, more to justify personal
>> opinion and biases. The number one justification to wall HTML5 off
>> from RDFa is Henri's repeated references to the best practices as
>> "rules", yet we've had Ian say these are really more guidelines than
>> "rules".
>
> Design Principles are guidelines.  Henri does refer to them a lot.  And I
> don't see that as a bad thing.
>

Henri uses them in the context of rules, not guidelines.

>> You're saying that all of this takes precedence over the advice given
>> by experts in the field, as well as other W3C groups chartered to
>> provide recommendations and advice...this counter to the very charter
>> that supposedly forms the basis for this group.
>
> Each of us are experts, just perhaps not over the same domain, or to the
> same level of depth.  I would like to see the various experts come together
> and discuss ideas, and spend less time comparing the lengths of their
> expertise.
>

Then let me know when Ian will be performing surgery on you. After
all, he is an expert.

>> Seems to me that this working group's underlying practice is more to
>> take the path of least resistance, than to create a new version of
>> HTML that meets the needs of all people, not just a small group
>> remarkable for the lack of diversity of its members.
>
> I've seen quite a bit of discussions and controversy; I definitely disagree
> that the content in the current draft was formed as a by-product of
> following the path of least resistance.
>

We'll have to disagree on this one.


>  - - -
>
> You (collectively) have seen me operate over an extended period of time.  I
> am quite willing to play devil's advocate.  I'd like to hear an answer that
> I can understand to the question of "why do we need @summary as opposed to
> something else or even nothing at all" that doesn't crucially depend either
> on "because it was in HTML 4" or "because I said so".  Both can be included
> in the answer, just hopefully the third (or forth or fifth) leg of the
> argument are substantial enough that the entire weight doesn't fall on the
> first two legs.
>

Will defer to yours and Laura's discussion on this one.

Shelley
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 17:40:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:38 GMT