W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: New round of Working Drafts (was Re: New split-out drafts)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:25:57 -0800
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <E355C19D-38C1-477B-9AB8-8788001190BA@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:49 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> [in reply to suggestions by Larry] 
>> 
>> In general, I have no problem with these wording changes, in that none 
>> of them are false or misleading. But I do have three minor comments 
>> here:
>> 
>> 1) "does not imply endorsement by the majority of members of the W3C 
>> HTML working group" ==> Strictly speaking, it does not imply endorsement 
>> by *any* of the members of the W3C HTML Working Group, but saying "the 
>> majority of" implies that a majority disapproves. I do not think that is 
>> established. Nor is majority endorsement a relevant standard for W3C 
>> decisions. Thus, I think both HTML Microdata and HTML+RDFa should simply 
>> say: "The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft 
>> does not imply endorsement by the W3C HTML Working Group or the W3C as a 
>> whole."
> 
> I haven't included that exact text because there was already more 
> strongly-worded text to that effect that was carefully crafted in response 
> to much earlier comments. Please let me know if that is a problem.

For reference, the current text is this:

"The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft does not imply that all of the participants in the W3C HTML working group endorse the contents of the specification. Indeed, for any section of the specification, one can usually find many members of the working group or of the W3C as a whole who object strongly to the current text, the existence of the section at all, or the idea that the working group should even spend time discussing the concept of that section."

Seems fine to me and indeed it is more strongly worded. (If you want to be super complete, you could mention that people object to the existence of the specification as a whole, not just individual sections, but I don't really care about the exact wording of the disclaimer.)

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2010 10:26:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:01 GMT