W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2009

Re: Design Principles, Section 1.6.1 relationship to HTML 4.01

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:05:17 -0400
Message-ID: <4A24185D.6090808@intertwingly.net>
To: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Rob Sayre wrote:
> On 6/1/09 1:23 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Rob Sayre wrote:
>>> On 6/1/09 7:01 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>> From my point of view, a push to publish a Design Principles 
>>>> document as a formal W3C Note is a distraction.  To be clear, I am 
>>>> not saying that the Design Principles document itself isn't useful 
>>>> and interesting, but the effort to publish it as a Note means that 
>>>> the details of the wording is something that must be discussed.
>>>
>>> There seem to be group members laboring under the assumption that the 
>>> Design Principles document does not apply to their suggestions or 
>>> objections.
>>
>> It is a common debating technique to make grandiose claims without 
>> specifics.
> 
> That claim is neither grandiose or vague. I could cite instances of this 
> behavior, but singling out individuals seems unproductive.
> 
>> Now: what was your point?
> 
> That arguing against the document is fruitless procedural stalling. 
> There are plenty of other working groups where one can work on standards 
> that will never appear in a browser.
> 
> When the document comes up in argument, there is a possibility that the 
> person citing the document as support is "wrapping themselves in the 
> flag", but that is relatively easy to spot. If the document has been 
> cited correctly, then the group really breaks down: I have seen claims 
> that we should restart it from scratch, and claims that it's all a bunch 
> of wishy-washy rubbish, but mostly I see claims that the document 
> doesn't apply to everyone in the group.

The requirement to provide citations is intended to ensure that the 
original input is not mischaracterized.  I believe that the above 
contains a number of such mischaracterizations, but I can't say for 
sure, as you continue to decline to provide citations.

> Publishing the document is a useful way to record consensus (...which is 
> not unanimity).

I believe what we are waiting on is a draft that the author of said 
draft feels is ready.

> - Rob

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 18:05:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:25 GMT