W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Minutes, SVG WG Brussels f2f day 4 (Monday)

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 10:49:26 +0200
Message-ID: <4C04C996.1090805@w3.org>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: robert@ocallahan.org, www-svg@w3.org, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, abarth@webkit.org, eric@webkit.org
Hi, Henri, Robert-

Henri Sivonen wrote (on 6/1/10 10:10 AM):
> "Robert O'Callahan"<robert@ocallahan.org>  wrote:
>
>>  >  shepazu: MSIE considered novel syntax... HTMl5 is some way from
>>  being done
>>  >  and the parsing algo has only 1 implementaitn thats incomplete
>>  >  ... from W3C process perspective its far from done
>>
>>  I believe Henri Sivonen's implementation (which powers validator.nu,
>>  which is enabled by default in Firefox nightly builds, and which we
>>  plan to ship as the HTML parser in the next Firefox release) is
>>  quite complete.
>
> It indeed is quite complete.
...
>
> I wonder what incompleteness Doug was referring to.

This is again a case of not-quite-correct scribing.

I didn't say it was incomplete, I said it wasn't "done"... that is, it's 
not yet in a shipping browser release, so it hasn't really had the 
stress-test of real-world usage.  I suspect it will work okay, and I 
trust Henri's work, but it's not yet tested.

As a side note...
I am comfortable with conducting SVG WG technical work in in public, and 
I was the one who suggested sending the agenda and minutes to the public 
list for maximum transparency, but I hope that everyone understands that 
minutes are not verbatim, and that much is lost in scribing; maybe the 
scribe mistyped or glossed something over, maybe they didn't quite 
understand the background or the technical aspects of the issue, and 
I've even seen scribes pick what they want to type for political reasons 
(though that's not the case here); it's almost always a summary, and it 
more useful to the attendees as a reminder than it is for the public at 
large; that's a shame, but it's true.  Maybe recorded telcons would be 
better, but then we would need to pay for transcriptions for equal 
accessibility, and a lot of people would be less forthcoming and open if 
they were being recording (and there is a lot of joshing and ribaldry 
that goes on that might not be strictly professional, but which makes 
long meetings bearable).

We could spend a herculean amount of effort cleaning the minutes up and 
making sure that all the subtleties are correct, but I don't consider 
that to be a good use of the group's time, and it would mean significant 
delay from the time the meeting is held to the time the public sees it, 
which seems undesirable.

So please bear that in mind when reading the minutes of a meeting, and 
if you have an issue with something that was scribed, ask for 
clarification... don't leap to conclusions.  We are all happy to explain 
what we meant in a way that translates better to a written medium.

Also note that if there is an issue that you are particularly interested 
in, if you belong to any organization that is a member of the SVG WG, 
you can request to join the telcon; we're happy to bring in expert 
opinions to help guide our decisions.  (I would extend this to folks who 
aren't group members, but it just doesn't scale... we'd never be able to 
focus on our priorities.  And of course, there is the small matter of 
Royalty-Free commitments on contributions.)

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 08:49:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:45 GMT