Re: Title of the HTML5 document

On May 24, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> (not sent to the list)
>
> With regard to "what the document itself is named", could you
> please clarify:
>
> Is it your position that discussion of the title is out of scope
> and not "something that needs to be resolved"? That what the
> document is named is settled and should not be a discussion
> topic?
>
> Or that the current title is perfect, and that no other
> title will do?

My position is as follows:

1) The main title "HTML 5" is a settled issue.

2) The wording of the  subtitle is not a very important issue. I  
wouldn't characterize it as one of the top things that needs to be  
settled.

3) I would personally be inclined to leave the subtitle to editor's  
discretion unless there is a major problem with it.

4) I don't think the subtitle is perfect, but I think it's good  
enough, and attempting to perfect it would be a bikeshed exercise.


> Are you willing to suggest other titles that might be more
> acceptable to the group, if my suggestions don't meet your
> approval?

That would depend on how many object, and the concrete nature of their  
objections. I think your objections (that it's not a "Technical  
Specification" or "a traditional language spec") are ill-founded and  
even if true would not make the current subtitle inappropriate, since  
the document is not in fact called "HTML 5: A traditional language  
spec and Technical Specification (as defined by the IETF)". Nor do I  
think the use of "must" instead of "is" (i.e. stating conformance  
requirements using RFC2119 keywords) makes the spec somehow limited in  
scope to browsers or "HTML interpreters".

>
> =======================
> The agenda for the May 21 meeting of the HTML working group[0]
> included a proposed "Process for Proposals"[1], which said,
> among other things:
>
>> 3) The issue about what the document itself is named (raised by Roy
>> Fielding[2]) is also something that needs to be resolved.
>
> Discussing [2], I suggested some reasons why one might prefer one
> title over another, factors affecting the title of this document,
> suggested an alternative title, and gave an example of a document
> that might be more consistent with the current title.
>
> In reply, I was told that while I was entitled to express
> my opinion, I wasn't entitled to have that opinion "expressed
> in the document title"[3] (i.e., that the opinion had no
> standing?),  that suggesting the title was inappropriate
> was a personal affront, that the title had already been decided
> by a working group vote, and so forth.

Your title suggestion seemed designed to deprecate the spec or limit  
its scope of applicability. When you make claims such as that the  
document is not a "Technical Specification", it further serves to  
demonstrate your negative outlook on the spec.

>
> [0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0174.html
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0161.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0430.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0237.html
>
>
> Is this or is this not a topic that "needs to be resolved"?

Personally, I don't think it needs to be resolved.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Sunday, 24 May 2009 23:30:34 UTC