W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2011

Re: ISSUE-127: link-type-flags - Straw Poll for Objections

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 23:23:49 +0100
Message-ID: <4D7AA0F5.2000003@gmx.de>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
CC: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 11.03.2011 23:08, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>  wrote:
>> This issue is not purely "aesthetic". It affects registrations of new link
>> relations.
>
> You did not explain this anywhere in your Change Proposal, as far as I can tell.

My bad.

>> The format of the registry currently *allows* them to vary.
>
> You don't explain why this is a problem.  Is it because you think it
> increases the probability that new link relations will actually vary
> in this regard?  If so, why do you think this?  Or is it some other
> reason?  You don't say.

If the format allows that kind of variation, it's not unlikely that at 
some point people will try to "take advantage" of it.

>> I don't understand this point. The current format allows the relation to
>> have a different effect on the various elements; the new format does not.
>
> Nothing in the Change Proposal prevents the editor from, e.g., adding
> additional prose later on to specifically let a link relation's
> meaning vary, while preserving the format mandated by your Change
> Proposal.  Possibly this could be construed as contradictory to your
> Change Proposal's intent, but you don't explain your reasoning
> sufficiently in the Change Proposal to make me confident in any such
> judgment.

Common sense, maybe?

>> The context is here:
>> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00000.html>
>> plus the subsequent mails.
>
> You did not provide this context in the Change Proposal.  I don't
> think it's reasonable to ask everyone in the Working Group to read
> through whole e-mail threads you link to -- you should summarize the
> arguments concisely in the Change Proposal itself.  This is especially
> true when those threads are only linked from another e-mail which is
> only linked to from an objection.
>
>> It appears you do not understand the underlying reason for this change
>> proposal; this could be my fault for not explaining well enough, but it
>> could also be caused by you not caring about things outside the HTML world.
>
> It's because you didn't explain it anywhere in the Change Proposal.

Well, that's a problem of replacing constructive working group 
discussions with a multi-stage escalation procedure. It's not simple to 
write a good CP, because sometimes things seem self-evident when they 
are not.

>...

I agree that it's better when CPs are self-contained. On the other hand, 
I'd expect anybody commenting on these issues to be vaguely familiar 
with the discussions that lead it to get to that stage.

Also, it's a problem when we have a process that's *solely* based on 
what was submitted on day X, replacing a constructive discussion on the 
mailing list, in particular replacing all the discussions we already had 
over here. (That's why it's good to provide feedback to CPs as early 
possible; and yes, I'm not always doing that myself)

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 22:24:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:26 GMT