- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:46:41 -0800
- To: "Vickers, Mark" <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>, "<public-html-admin@w3.org>" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Vickers, Mark <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > The question at hand is not approving the spec, but to approve publishing the First Public Working Draft. The purpose of FPWD is to "signal to the community to begin reviewing the document." Public review is a cornerstone of our open process. > > Based on the rich discussion from the CfC, it seems the community is ready for such a review. It would be great if we could focus the discussion on the specification particulars to understand in what cases changes can be made to fix issues and in what cases wholesale alternative proposals can be presented. > > The alternative to publishing FPWD would likely be for this work to continue without such public review, which benefits no one. > > So, I think all parties benefit by publishing FPWD and getting all the alternatives on the table. Working Draft is also the first meaningful status for a spec on the Rec track in the W3C. Please don't pretend that it's nothing more than a formality, or merely a method of requesting review. It also implicitly asserts that the HTMLWG and by extension the W3C is taking on the spec as a legitimate work item which it desires to send to completion. This is a powerful messaging channel when communicating with the public - it's exciting when a draft upgrades from ED to FPWD! If we in the group don't feel the spec is appropriate to pursue at all, opposing publishing it is the appropriate means to do so. I would also appreciate it if you and others didn't imply that substantive changes would actually come out of public review. All of the opposition in this and related threads was laid out with even greater force when this spec was first introduced, and it was ignored. Every aspect that was brought up as terrible and worthy of blocking the spec then are still present. Your corporation's interests are not aligned with the goals of the open web, and pretending otherwise accomplishes nothing. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 01:47:28 UTC