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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 06:50:31 -0400
Message-ID: <4A192677.4010603@intertwingly.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> On May 23, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 22 May 2009 23:57:41 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On May 22, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>>> I read these minutes and I was unable to discern a decision among 
>>>>> the options I proposed:
>>>>> 1) Mark up examples more clearly as such in the Design Principles 
>>>>> document.
>>>>> 2) Delete all examples from the Design Principles document.
>>>>> 3) Something else if neither of these options is acceptable.
>>>>> I will do #1 unless I hear otherwise in the next few days.
>>>>
>>>> The general perception I got from the call was that this document 
>>>> was useful as a historical guide, and as a Working Draft, and it 
>>>> should remain as such as some people find it helpful (others may 
>>>> not), but should not progress any further.
>>>>
>>>> But as you were not present on the call, no decision was made.  
>>>> David Singer volunteered to get with you.
>>>
>>> I think the flaw identified in the document should be fixed, even if 
>>> it remains a Working Draft. Would anyone like to make an argument for 
>>> not fixing it? Or for doing something other than my proposed remedy?
>>
>> I don't see ay reason not to fix it,
> 
> I'm going to fix it as soon as I can coordinate with Anne.
> 
>> but given the nature of the document, it might be even easier to 
>> publish a new version that simply has a changed status, clarifying 
>> that the group has no plan to take this any further...
> 
> Hmm. The original document was published as a Working Draft on track to 
> become a W3C Note by a lopsided vote of the Working Group in favor. If 
> we are going to reverse that decision and decide not to ever publish it 
> as a Note, then I think we need something more than informal discussion 
> on a conference call.
> 
> So, I would object to publishing a version that says the group has no 
> plans to take the document further, until and unless we have clear 
> consensus on that point.

I agree that it was a lopsided vote.

I agree that there was an intent to publish as a Note, but disagree with 
any implication that it constituted a commitment or a decision to 
ultimately publish as a Note, in particular I disagree that it was a 
decision that would need to be reversed.

I disagree that the conference call is "informal", but I agree that 
further discussion is warranted.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 24 May 2009 10:51:12 UTC

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