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

Re: [html] Summary draft

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:45:09 -0700
Cc: 'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'Cynthia Shelly' <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <07FCA7CB-860F-4B84-A218-24B673DC7CBC@apple.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>

On Sep 14, 2009, at 11:11 PM, John Foliot wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> 2) Responding to my proposal, John said, among other things,
>> "As one member of HTML WG, I voice my support", and "To be formal,
>> I support this initiative fully."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0182.html
>
> Let's also remember that in that same email, you wrote:
> "HTML WG will propose a WCAG2 Techniques update to the appropriate  
> working
> group of WAI (is it PFWG or WCAG WG?)"
> This is what I offered to support. This also would indicate that  
> there is
> an understanding of overarching issues, but disagreement on  
> particulars -
> both fair and reasonable positions.
>
> Yet now the editor claims he doesn't understand the issue?  There is a
> mighty huge difference between disagreeing on particulars, and 'not
> understanding' the issue.

I've asked Ian to give space to the discussion. I don't think his  
initial email was helpful.

But I believe what he asked for is a problem statement, i.e. what's  
wrong with the current spec text that the alternate spec text fixes. I  
believe we'll get clear on that through further discussion. And I  
think a lot of this is implied in the statements and goals in the email.

I think calling Ian an "idiot" does not help the discussion either.  
Nor does calling the current spec text "biased". Let's stick to the  
issues ok?


>> None of this rules out suggesting further spec changes. But I cannot
>> square these past actions with presenting the current spec text as  
>> the
>> work of "one person ([Ian])" or "biased in its 'suggestions'".
>
> The earlier draft language around @summary was exactly that, Ian's
> guidance and opinion.  I had thought that we had gotten past that  
> until
> Ian chimed in today saying he didn't understand the issue.  My  
> comment was
> in reference to that, but I can see how it could be applied to the  
> current
> draft,

In context, it really looked like you were talking about the current  
draft:

>>> The current draft text is biased in its 'suggestions' and needs a  
>>> more even
>>> approach

[...]

>>> <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)
>>>

If that's not what you meant, or if you misspoke, then I withdraw my  
criticism. However I will note that it's not that useful to focus on  
what used to be in old drafts, rather than the current draft.

> which, while incomplete, is in accordance with what I believed was
> the consensus at the time approaching the Heartbeat draft.

Thanks for your acknowledgement of this.

> At that time, as today, the advisory language and Issue 32 remain  
> open and awaiting
> resolution. Cynthia's work at this time is movement forward.

I also found Cynthia's posting helpful, and I hope that in discussing  
it, the Working Group can produce some concrete suggestions.

>
>> Note: none of this should stop John from suggesting further
> improvements.
>> But I think comments on the state of the current spec text should
>> acknowledge John's role in creating it.
>
> Rest assured Maciej, I will continue to offer my contributions, and  
> if we
> can avoid circular "I don't understand" emails after so much effort  
> has
> been invested by others on any particular topic, then we will indeed  
> see
> positive progress.

I do appreciate your efforts to make constructive contributions. I ask  
once again, though, let's focus on the issues, and not on name- 
calling. I will do my best to keep constructive discussion moving  
forward. A great thing to do would be to comment on the specifics of  
Cynthia's proposal.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 06:45:53 UTC

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