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

Re: [html] Summary draft

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:48:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4AAF0E85.9040907@intertwingly.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'Cynthia Shelly' <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>, public-html@w3.org
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> Just for the record:
> 
> On Sep 14, 2009, at 6:33 PM, John Foliot wrote:
> 
>> We already know that *you* think that it is never appropriate to use 
>> @summary, and
>> your opinion is duly and publicly noted.  However, the 'consensus'
>> position is that it has both a use and appropriateness that goes beyond
>> your opinion.
> 
> We haven't assessed a Working Group consensus on the appropriate uses 
> for summary. It's clear to me from observation that opinions vary (and 
> it's not a case of Ian vs. everyone else).
> 
> 
>>
>>> It is difficult to evaluate proposals without understanding what
>>> problems they are trying to solve.
>>
>> <problem>THE PROBLEM IS THAT MANY PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH THE TEXT YOU HAVE
>> INSERTED INTO THE SPECIFICATION.</problem>  
>>
>> It is text that has been authored by one person (you), as opposed to a
>> draft text, which Cynthia has floated, that has been authored by and
>> commented upon by many people, and more closely reflects the consensus
>> position of the communities affected.
> 
> It's not clear at this time whether Cynthia's text reflects consensus of 
> the HTML Working Group. It does seem clear to me that a number of people 
> like Cynthia's text better than Ian's, and vice versa. 
> 
> 
> Overall comment: John, please recall that you personally signed off on 
> the text that is currently in the Editor's Draft. You are free to change 
> your mind, and express a preference for different text. But I suggest 
> that you dial down the outrage over text that you at one time personally 
> reviewed and approved. How about a little less all-caps and "one person" 
> rhetoric? (I do appreciate your work to more clearly express the issues 
> and file bugs.)

Point of order: the only thing John agreed to was to withdraw his draft 
"at this time", with the expectation that the discussions "are on-going 
and will continue" and that this action "*did not* close Issue 32, and
it is important for all to realize that point."

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0182.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0286.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0362.html

> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 03:49:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:08 UTC