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

RE: minutes: HTML WG Weekly 21 May 2009 [draft]

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 13:13:30 -0700
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8B62A039C620904E92F1233570534C9B0118CD8A4806@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>
I should speak slower on phone conferences.
Here are some corrections and additions (at least of what I think I said.)
Re-reading the log, I think I'm changing my mind about where
to go with the DP document.

==============================================
>>   LM: I have some comments...
>>   ... The question is not so much whether the DP document is
>>   self-reasonable, but whether or not it has in fact been used
>>   appropriately in the document

LM: The question is not so much whether the DP document is itself
... reasonable, but whether it in fact matches the design principles
... actually used to produce the document.

>>   ... The DP document is ambigious

LM: To give an example, take section 2.4.

>>   ... What the document says about [Paving the Cowpaths] is that we
>>   should consider widespread authoring practice rather than inventing
>>   something totally new.
>>   <DanC> contra-positive
>>
>>   LM: It has been used in the contra-positive
>>
>>   <masinter> if A then B turns into if not A than not B
>>
>>   LM: e.g. <head profile>


LM: "If something is not widespread authoring practice it should be
... removed" is a principle that has been applied.


>>   [a side discussion between masinter and dsinger is unfortuantely not
>>   minuted]

DSinger argued for why doing so was a good principle.
LM: whether it was a good principle was another discussion,
... we're talking about whether to publish the DP document as defining
... the design principles actually used.

[this was a 'discussion' and not 'side']

>>   LM: which things are considered widespread and which things aren't;
>>   it seems like this has been applied inconsistently


>>   <dsinger> i.e. if something has been previously specified, but
>>   failed to make a cowpath, then it should be de-considered
>>
>>   AvK: what makes you say that?
>>
>>   <dsinger> the above is NOT a stated principle but it seems to be
>>   used as such
>>

LM: In reference to inconsistent application of "widespread", it's
seems that some widespread practices weren't considered, while some 
practices that were not common were given significant consideration.

>>   LM: I could come up with some examples, but there were some
>>   discussions that I would have to do some research on

LM: Finally, the word 'consider' indicates that the existing
... practice should be debated. But the [Paving the Cowpath] DP
... has been used as an argument not just for consideration, but also
... as a strong argument justifying features.
... This is just 

>>   ... to give you an indication of what I think the issues are
>>   ... that wording of the DP was changed during the discussion of the
>>   DP itself
... to change the DP document to use "consider", so the word
... "consider" is significant.
 
>>
>>   <Laura> The principles are open to various interpretations. In
>>   practical use, no real consensus exists on what they mean.
>>
>>   LM: existing practice was used as a benchmark against wich
>>   contervailing proposals didn't have any use against existing
>>   practice

s/wich/which/


>>   <Laura> Group members have fundamental differences with them.
>>
>>   LM: my question is that the document itself may be reasonable but
>>   the practice in which the document has been used may not which is
>>   the nature of my concern

LM: The question is, while the document itself may be reasonable,
it may not match the design principles actually used. That is the
nature of my concern.

>>   AvK: that sounded really vague and incoherent and my scribing might
>>   have reflected that for which I apoligize
>>
>>   <Laura> There has been no meeting of the minds on the content of the
>>   design principles.
>>
>>   LM: my question was whether publishing the document today would
>>   actually describe the practices we use today
>>
>>   <dsinger> why does the document need to be published or gain any
>>   more status? it's a guideline to help move the group along, isn't
>>   it, and hence internal?
>>
>>   AvK: to answer dsinger's question it has been published at some
>>   point so it's not internal
>>
>>   SR: it was on the agenda because Maciej wrote an email to address an
>>   issue and LC had concerns
>>   ... I'm happy to move it forward or leave it as is
>>
>>   <Laura> If we are not going to have another poll to find out if we
>>   have real consensus of the content of the principles document, I
>>   propose that the entire document be obsoleted.
>>
>>   LM: I'm ok with leaving it as historical anecdote

s/anecdote/artifact/

>>   DS: I think it helps as a general document documenting the way we
>>   think
>>   ... I don't think it's useful as rulebook
>>
>>   AvK: I agree with DS and would be happy to leave it as is
>>
>>   DS: I'll ping Maciej
>>
>>   SR: great
>>
>>   <Laura> If it is decided to publish the document as a note anyway, I
>>   propose that at a minimum, a disclaimer is attached saying:
>>
>>   DougS: I think it is worth noting that when we first discussed these
>>   TimBL chimed on to say they are not useful as rule but more as
>>   describing how people arrived somewhere. they are mostly used as a
>>   rhetorical tool, in practice
>>
>>   <Laura> "Publication of this document does not constitute
>>   endorsement. There is no working group consensus on the content of
>>   these principles but it was decided that further effort to refine
>>   them and gain consensus was not a productive use of time."
>>
>>   [For the minutes: DS might refer to both DaveS and DougS before I
>>   started using DougS. Sorry!]
>>
>>   <masinter> i would question whether they reflect actually how
>>   decisions were made
>>
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 20:14:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:37 GMT