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

Re: Proposal to publish HTML5 and vocab specs

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:08:11 +0100
Message-ID: <4AE8423B.2010403@gmx.de>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Sam Ruby wrote:
> ...
>> I still disagree on that. Microdata was put into the spec based on a 
>> unilaterally decision of the editor. The WG failed to get it removed 
>> before publishing a WD, true, but that's not quite the same thing as 
>> having made a conscious decision to include it.
> 
> I understand that perspective.  Looking just this feature in isolation 
> -- while it was authored by a single person, it still is a fact that it 
> attracted both interest and contributions from others.  It would have 
> met my personal criteria for publishing in as an independent draft, as 
> clearly RDFa obviously did.
> ...

Yes. But that test never was made, because the person proposing 
Microdata happened to have the editorial power to just put it in, while 
others didn't have that power. This causes a perception of the process 
not being fair.

I agree with most if your other points, except for:

> My advice to everybody is spend more time pushing *for* features and aspects that you like, and only spend time pushing *against* features or aspects that you can't live with. 

I think that if we want to reach a point where the spec actually is 
reviewable we should concentrate on taking those things out that are 
either controversial, truly optional, or both. Right now we're spending 
a lot of time arguing about controversial feature sets, while we really 
should be spending it reviewing the important parts.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 13:15:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:51 GMT