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

Re: microdata use cases and Getting data out of poorly written Web pages

From: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 23:19:52 -0400
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <FB02A629-DEC7-42C0-840A-A03208A027F2@la-grange.net>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Hi Sam,

replying at your invitation for comments
http://twitter.com/samruby/statuses/1762898805

Le 9 mai 2009 à 00:51, Sam Ruby a écrit :
> For better or worse, the HTML WG is operating under a CTR process.   
> As far as I'm concerned, no attempt has been made to assess  
> consensus on any part of the current draft, at least not to my  
> satisfaction.

agreed.

> That does not mean that such assessment of consensus can't be  
> obtained rather quickly in many areas, in fact, I'd suggest that it  
> can.

The shape of content. Writing is a strong statement. It shows the way  
and defines borders. I would agree with the CTR process, if the  
document would offer the alternatives between different versions,  
explorations.

A way to reach consensus then would be to test what has been deployed.  
That would allow us to avoid the logical fallacies.

> I joined this working group as co-chair with a number of personal  
> goals.

Mike as a staff contact and you as a chair have been part of the best  
things that could happen to this WG.

> subgoals were to significantly reduce the hostile working  
> environment that existed in public-html at the time and to provide  
> anybody and everybody who wished to an opportunity to pursue  
> alternative proposals.

I take blame for that. I'm on the verge of thinking that I should have  
not pushed so hard for reopening the HTML WG at W3C. It was either too  
late or maybe too early. I don't know, but the communities were  
obviously not ready at the time.


> Shelley once referred to this as "put up or shut up", and I will  
> admit that there is an element of truth to this.

Not easy. When someone has editing nuclear fire (time, support from a  
big company, a "gentlemen" club, etc.) it becomes very hard to come  
with a plastic knife. It looks more like "burn or shut up". Great  
power should be handled with care. I do not think it is the case for  
now.

> My third and final personal goal was to assess consensus.  As to the  
> order in which we assess consensus, I have every intention of being  
> opportunistic -- taking the low hanging fruit when it is offered,  
> and taking on topics when the topic of conversation is naturally  
> occurring anyway.

Even before the WhatWG started, I had in mind that we should do an  
html 4.2 or 4.5, where we would be fixing simple mistakes which had  
been made about the html 4 specification. I was not in the right  
position to do that at the time. Mistake. It became a bit more  
complex. From the current html 5, I would remove all the pop-culturish  
markup (inherited from blog age).  Separate the DOM, remove all the  
APIs and put them in separate documents.

I had trust in the past into Ian Hickson's editor abilities. This has  
long gone. Ashes. I do not support autocracy. I believe in people.



-- 
Karl Dubost
Montréal, QC, Canada
http://twitter.com/karlpro
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 03:20:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:35 GMT