Re: CSVW WG requests PR transition - Kudos and Plea

[Re-sending in two parts. This is part 2.]

Maybe you are all too pissed off at me (for being so pushy) to be able
to assess my suggestions without bias.  But I'm sorry, that's no excuse. 
  This spec is not for me, it is for the entire community, and any
reasonable editor should be able to recognize that this spec would be
significantly improved by making the *most* commonly used feature more
*visible* to readers in a way that is accurate and reflects readers'
likely use of the spec.

The continued attempt by the editors to portray the "standard metadata
filename" feature as an inseparable part of the "site-wide location
configuration" feature is simply *misleading*.  It is *not*
how users will see it, it is *not* historically how it developed, and it
is *not* technically accurate.  (Technical test of separability: could
feature X be provided without feature Y and vice versa?  Yes.)

I was disappointed that nobody on the working group felt able to stand
up to Mark Nottingham and push back on the TAG by pointing out that the
TAG's perception of the standard metadata filename feature's impact on
web architecture was simply *incorrect*.  It is unfortunate that this
architectural mis-perception has not been corrected.  But I can
understand that others in the WG may not have had the time or
inclination to dig into the question as deeply as I did, and from that
perspective it was certainly understandable that the WG chose to defer
to the TAG's guidance rather than listening to little me.  And in the
end, the inclusion of the .well-known feature causes very little
substantive harm -- it mostly just adds cruft -- *given* that the
standard metadata filename feature that users *really* need is still in
the spec.  (Thank goodness!)

I have very high personal and technical respect for all of you, and I
very much appreciate your efforts.  You all have done an enormous amount
of work on this spec and its implementations, whereas I am not a member
of the WG and I have only made occasional comments here and there in my
attempts to help.  And since this issue is purely editorial at this
point, it really is up to you to decide how much work you are willing to
do to benefit the spec's readership.  I won't make a stink about this if
the WG decides to do nothing.  But I do still entreat you to think about
this from the *reader's* and *user's* perspective.

Almost *no* users will give a rat's ass about the "site-wide location
configuration" feature.  But *all* of them will care about the "standard 
metadata filename" feature.

I am not asking you to remove the "site-wide location configuration"
feature.  It is there for anyone who feels the need to use it, and it
satisfies the TAG's guidance.  But I am asking you to *please* -- for
the sake of the community -- make more visible the feature that *all*
users *will* care about: the "standard metadata filename" feature.
Users will *not* think of it as a default of the "site-wide location
configuration" feature.  They will think of it as the "standard metadata 
filename" feature.

Thanks for reading, and thanks again for all your hard work,
David Booth

P.S. Apologies again for the poor choice of words in my previous draft 
of this message.  Based on the fact that multiple of my previous 
comments appeared to have been studiously ignored until someone else 
independently voiced the same concerns, I guess I unnecessarily 
attributed the editors' inaction to malice when I should not have done 
so.   (It certainly *appeared* that the editors were angry and hence 
treated my comments differently than other's.)  Again, I apologize.

Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2015 21:18:33 UTC