- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:20:17 +0100
- To: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:33:38 +0100, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote: > That's a fair point; and I'm only pushing this because I feel I could > find resources, by asking differently. > > Now, if I were to find resources, I know that the first question I would > get would be whether the main editor would be supportive of that > approach — both in the sense that he would not see it as a pure > nuisance, and also in the sense of providing assistance to help > assistant editor(s) getting started. > > You're not Hixie, but maybe this is something you've discussed with him? > Would you be yourself also available for the "getting started" part? The way I (and others) approached this is by forking part of the HTML standard and demonstrating our ability to maintain it and address feedback more effectively than Ian. That's how you do this. >> 2. Modularizing a part of HTML (or anything really) is actually a rather >> complicated procedure that requires detailed understanding of how all >> the pieces fit together. That is why thus far only experienced editors >> (with >> time) have demonstrated the feasibility. > > True (although the difficulty probably depends on the specific module > targeted); I take it that it would require someone with either very good > existing knowledge of the spec, or with enough competence to catch up > quickly. But that still doesn't seem unsurmountable (but I'll only prove > that if and when I find such a person). Good luck! -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 23 March 2012 15:20:57 UTC