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

Re: Process for proposals

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 10:11:54 -0400
Message-ID: <4A140FAA.3050401@intertwingly.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> On May 20, 2009, at 3:46 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
>> 3) The issue about what the document itself is named (raised by Roy 
>> Fielding[2]) is also something that needs to be resolved.  This issue 
>> primarily affects the title page and little else.
> 
> The title of the document is not a technical issue, so I don't think we 
> need to give a great deal of consideration to minority objectors. 
> Particularly when the proposed alternative is (a) inaccurate on the face 
> of it; (b) intended to downplay the value of the spec. I think we should 
> let the spec be titled by people who are generally in agreement with its 
> technical direction, and then assess consensus on its technical 
> contents, rather than changing the title to suit the preferences of 
> those who disagree with the contents.

There is no urgency to the issue, but I do believe that accurately 
describing the scope and the purpose of the document produced by this 
working group is something we need to resolve prior to Last Call.  Chris 
and PLH are welcome to correct me on this.

Speaking for myself only, I don't think referring to the current 
document as a Browser Behavior Specification is inaccurate.  I also 
believe that there is significantly more to the spec than simply a 
vocabulary and associated APIs.  Whether or not there is a better 
description that "upplays" the value of the spec and captures the full 
scope is something we can explore together.

There is no question that this document, by whatever name, is needed.

> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:12:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:03 UTC