W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2012

RE: Issue 30 (Was: RE: Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014)

From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:56:58 +0000
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0CB063710346B446A5B5DC305BF8EA3E29962E@Ex2010MBX.development.algonquinstudios.com>
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
> 
> On 09/21/2012 02:28 PM, Adrian Roselli wrote:
> >
> > What I don't know, however, is if their roles with the groups mean
> > they are agreeing to this based on a directive from W3C management
> > (just as Sam said the chairs' intention to proceed with the survey was
> > put on hold by W3C management) and a clear indication that no other
> > option was allowed, or because they genuinely thought this was the
> > right course of action for accessibility.
> >
> > I understand I have to search to find that answer.
> 
> The following links may prove helpful:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles.html#Modular
> http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/

(Hey, Olympics reference!) I think the modularity TBL speaks of is well understood by everyone here. I also understand from 15 years of building systems for clients that sometimes granularity can be taken too far. It can be used to push unpleasant aspects of systems out until an argument can be made that their exclusion to that point is reason to remove altogether.


> I will state that it was not a directive, but was considered as input from the
> Director that we considered in formulating the plan that you now see.

Thanks. In that case I don't take that as a reason to hold off any existing commitments, plans, development, or other words I can't think of right now.

Thanks again for your help tracking down information.
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 19:57:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 19:57:31 GMT