W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2008

Re: [css3-namespace] Last call comments from XHTML2 WG

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:20:14 -0700
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org>, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9B6E05EF.AECCF86F-ON8825741A.006EE1D8-8825741A.006FBBC5@ca.ibm.com>
Hi fantasai,

Thanks for the clarification that you are responding to last call comments 
without the CSS working group's approval of the responses.

Please see the process document description of formally addressing issues 
(http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address).

It describes a very different model than the one you explained is being 
used in the CSS working group.  Throughout the process document, and 
specifically at the above link, it is the group (singular form) that 
formally addresses an issue, and in particular if *the* group believes a 
reviewer's comments result from a misunderstanding (as you've implied you 
believe is the case here), then "*the* group *should* seek clarification 
*before* reaching a decision." (Quote is from the process document link 
above, but emphasis is mine).

It is troublematic that last call comments are being addressed, whether 
accepting or rejecting, without group consensus.  In the case of 
rejection, there are many cases where others agree but do not post a 
comment since it has already been posted.  In the case of acceptance, you 
may be accepting something that is unacceptable to others, or also your 
way of a addressing the problem may be unacceptable to others on the 
group.

If CSS would like the W3C to start operating under a different policy like 
the one you described, then the chair(s) should escalate this up to the 
W3C management and ensure that the new modus operandi is adequately 
covered in the process document.

John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Staff Member
Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
Blog RSS feed: 
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw





fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> 
Sent by: public-forms-request@w3.org
03/28/2008 09:11 AM

To
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
cc
Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, Bjoern Hoehrmann 
<derhoermi@gmx.net>, Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org>, XHTML WG 
<public-xhtml2@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org
Subject
Re: [css3-namespace] Last call comments from XHTML2 WG







John Boyer wrote:
> 
> I've hit reply to the latest in the thread, but this message is in 
> further response to Bjoern and the thread in general.
> 
> I would like to point out that the W3C process document specifically 
> states that last call commenters are not required to develop full 
> spec-ready solutions to the problems they identify.  It is the 
> responsibility of the CSS working group to come up with a proposed 
> solution and then ask the commenter if they are satisfied.

Understood.

> I have not yet seen a satisfactory explanation in this email thread for 
> why the CSS group is choosing to violate the axiom that Steven has 
> described clearly below (and just as clearly in his last call comment).

I've tried to explain our rationale. I think the axiom Steven believes
is an axiom of CSS is subtly different from (and stricter than) the axiom
that we use in designing CSS. We take backwards and forwards compatibility
very seriously in CSS, and those are both principles that we apply in
designing new features. But that doesn't always mean every level must
either interpret the same code exactly the same or ignore everything
associated with it.

> What I have seen on this thread is a last call comment being rejected 
> without the rejection even being approved by the CSS working group (or 

The last call comment is being rejected. You have raised a formal 
objection
to that rejection, and Anne and I will take that back to the working group
for discussion. I don't see any good reason to consult the WG on every
comment we choose to reject if the commenter later agrees with our 
rationale.
Which has happened. In this case it hasn't, and you will get a response
from the full CSSWG.

~fantasai
Received on Friday, 28 March 2008 20:21:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:02 GMT