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

Design Principles: Moving Forward (was Re: minutes: HTML WG Weekly 21 May 2009 [draft])

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 18:14:34 -0500
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0905261614h32756b43xcb8903b2e49f82de@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Julian wrote [1]:

> Rob, Laura is correct that there was agreement on publishing a FPWD, but not
> on the content (just like for the HTML5 FPWD).

Thanks, Julian. According to the process document:

"A Working Draft is a document that W3C has published for review by
the community, including W3C Members, the public, and other technical
organizations. Some, but not all, Working Drafts are meant to advance
to Recommendation".
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#RecsWD

"A Working Group Note is published by a chartered Working Group to
indicate that work has ended on a particular topic. A Working Group
MAY publish a Working Group Note with or without its prior publication
as a Working Draft."
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#WGNote

The HTML Design Principle's subtitle is:
"W3C Working Draft 26 November 2007"

Shelley wrote [2]:

>  it can't hurt to wait on an updated document, and then assess consensus
> at that time.

It looks like work on the design principles is being resumed as a
Working Draft so the work has not ended.
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#tr-end

So Shelley, what you proposed seems like a reasonable approach.

Anne wrote [3]:

> A new vote with regards to what? So far the only vote we took was
> about publishing it once.

Maciej wrote [4]:

> I think it would make more sense to just field any outstanding comments,
> including new ones that come in, and then take a WG decision about publishing
> the document as a WG Note.

Sam wrote [5]:

> +1
>
> At this time, I am entirely unenthusiastic about holding a vote
> given that the document is in the process of being updated,

+1

Yes since Maciej has resumed work on the draft, a decision (or if lazy
consensus doesn't work a Vote) on whether to transition the doc from a
Working Draft to a Working Group Note seems appropriate.

I'm looking forward to new and old comments being addressed and discussed.

Some of the old ones are at:

http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ProposedDesignPrinciples?action=recall&rev=84#head-f6eb28b3b561a144b2d4a9af50467f4692b8bffc
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/dprv/results
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/wdhdp/results

One of the new ones is:

Larry wrote [6]:

> One very common reason why standards groups publish
> "Design Principles" documents and "requirements"
> documents and "goals" documents, is that such documents
> are provided to the community as benchmarks against
> which we expect review of the target document to
> be judged.
>
> So, we could work toward publishing a "Design Principles"
> document against which we expect community review:
> do these principles apply, NOW, to the document that
> we are asking the community to review?
>
> Can we document our goals -- even if they are
> incomplete, inconsistent, not entirely agreed upon --
> in a way that will be useful to reviewers in the
> review process?
>
> If that's the goal, then we should stop talking about
> the "Design Principles" in the past tense -- what were
> they, whether they were applied during arguments, etc. --
> and instead focus on the present and future.
>
> Going forward, starting today, what Design Principles
> do we want from the HTML 5 specification? And does
> the specification we have match those design goals?
>
> I think, for such a document to be useful, it would help
> to combine it with much of the material now contained
> in Section 1 of the HTML 5 specification -- which lists
> many but not all of the goals that the group or the
> editor or authors wish.

Any more new ideas?

Best Regards,
Laura

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0393.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0432.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0434.html
[4]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0442.html
[5]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0450.html
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0359.html

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 23:15:21 UTC

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