W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > January 2007

Re: Selectors API naming

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:27:20 -0800
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Joćo Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com>, Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFD0FDD748.50E29DE6-ON8825726E.006A8F1B-8825726E.006ADFA4@us.ibm.com>

Ian,
Editors are in charge of the words in a spec and simply make sure that the
will of the WG is reflected in the spec. I don't understand where there is
bad precedent in this. On the other hand, it would be very bad precedent if
editors attempted to override the will of the WG to make specs reflect
their own personal opinions.

Jon



                                                                           
             Ian Hickson                                                   
             <ian@hixie.ch>                                                
             Sent by:                                                   To 
             public-webapi-req         Joćo Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com>   
             uest@w3.org                                                cc 
                                       Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>  
                                                                   Subject 
             01/25/2007 11:18          Re: Selectors API naming            
             AM                                                            
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Joćo Eiras wrote:
> >
> > Given that this discussion was done behind closed doors, and given
> > that there is certainly not consensus on this (the first reaction I
> > saw on IRC to this was "wow, those names suck!")
>
> I find these much better than all other propositions, and I'm not lazy
> to type longer method names, if they're descriptive. So, it's a matter
> of personal opinion that "names suck".

My argument is not that the names suck. My argument is that there is not
concensus, that the decision process was opaque and behind-closed-doors,
and that having the working group override the editor on such a trivial
issue as naming is a bad precedent for open Web spec development.

--
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'




graycol.gif
(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

pic32179.gif
(image/gif attachment: pic32179.gif)

ecblank.gif
(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)

Received on Thursday, 25 January 2007 19:27:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:56 GMT