W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2008

Re: HTML5 spec

From: Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:30:12 +1300
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Message-id: <49269BC4.1090907@dean.org.nz>

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:52:12 +0100, Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz> 
> wrote:
>> I have nothing at all against Mike being "pro-active" and putting 
>> some thing together and publishing it, it's only the fact that it's 
>> been published at, and endorsed by the W3C that bothers me, it's 
>> pretty hard to argue against such a spec when it has already been 
>> published and people have accepted that it's here for good.


>
> In what way has it been published and endorsed by the W3C? 

I think I've already explained that, I think we are just going to see 
this differently.
To me and I'm sure a lot of other people, the spec looks like published 
work:
www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/
http://www.webdirections.org/blog/html5-markup-language-first-draft-published/ 

http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/11/html_5_the_markup.html

For wrong or for right, this is how I see it:
"it's pretty hard to argue against such a spec when it has already been 
published and people have accepted that it's here for good."

> It certainly does not look to be published and endorsed more than say 
> when I first drafted the html5-diff document, on which the HTML WG had 
> not made any decisions at that time either.

I don't see how that matters, perhaps there was an error in that process 
too.
I guess you could say that I have a problem with this particular part of 
the W3C process. Believe it or not I went out of my way to not make this 
look like an offensive criticism of Mike, that was the last thing I 
wanted to do, if it's come across that way I'll be happy to discuss it 
with him.

>
> (I'm not sure I agree with that the document should define things in a 
> normative way,

I agree.

> but I have a hard time seeing how anything Mike did here is wrong.)

It wasn't supposed to be a case of "Mike being wrong", more of a case of 
me disagreeing with the process. I did try to put my concerns across 
without criticising Mike personally.


-- 
Dean Edridge
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 11:30:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:19 GMT