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

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

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 19:05:29 +0200
To: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uuf1rfv2wxe0ny@widsith.local>
On Sun, 24 May 2009 17:06:05 +0200, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>  
wrote:

> Fair enough.  I once thought there was the possibility that a few small  
> changes might improve the chances that consensus might form.  If that  
> isn't the case, then I would suggest that those who have opposing views  
> be presented with the opportunity to prepare brief, factual statements  
> about the areas of disagreements.  The intent would be that such  
> statements would be included in the front matter of the Note.

I think we could get consensus on the wording. I don't think that we will  
have consensus on the interpretation, and while I think that the exercise  
of writing down some design principles and discussing them was useful, I  
don't think that the amount of time it would take to truly agree on what  
the principles are (the wording) and what they actually mean (which would  
require seriously expanding the examples, because that's how we really  
understand in geenral) can justify the further value we would derive from  
it.

So I think we should just park this in "no further development", refer to  
it as a set of points that we all sort of agreed were good ideas (except  
occasionally when we came to apply them and thought they meant different  
things) and spend our time on the things we have to do.

Cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Sunday, 24 May 2009 17:06:21 UTC

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