W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-wg-announce@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: minutes: HTML WG Weekly 21 May 2009 [draft]

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 01:15:40 -0700
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <A9CC3D6B-7820-487E-9B1C-EA5E51F6EDE2@apple.com>
To: public-html-wg-announce@w3.org

I read these minutes and I was unable to discern a decision among the  
options I proposed:

1) Mark up examples more clearly as such in the Design Principles  
2) Delete all examples from the Design Principles document.
3) Something else if neither of these options is acceptable.

I will do #1 unless I hear otherwise in the next few days.

On May 21, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> Maciej's suggestion on DP consensus
>   SR: LC made some comments on the maing list
>   ... does this need to be discussed?
>   [silence]
>   LM: I have some comments...
>   ... The question is not so much whether the DP document is
>   self-reasonable, but whether or not it has in fact been used
>   appropriately in the document
>   ... The DP document is ambigious
>   ... What the document says about [Paving the Cowpaths] is that we
>   should consider widespread authoring practice rather than inventing
>   something totally new
>   <DanC> contra-positive
>   LM: It has been used in the contra-positive
>   <masinter> if A then B turns into if not A than not B
>   LM: e.g. <head profile>
>   [a side discussion between masinter and dsinger is unfortuantely not
>   minuted]
>   LM: which things are considered widespread and which things aren't;
>   it seems like this has been applied inconsistently
>   <dsinger> i.e. if something has been previously specified, but
>   failed to make a cowpath, then it should be de-considered
>   AvK: what makes you say that?
>   <dsinger> the above is NOT a stated principle but it seems to be
>   used as such
>   LM: I could come up with some examples, but there were some
>   discussions that I would have to do some research on
>   ... to give you an indication of what I think the issues are
>   ... that wording of the DP was changed during the discussion of the
>   DP itself
>   <Laura> The principles are open to various interpretations. In
>   practical use, no real consensus exists on what they mean.
>   LM: existing practice was used as a benchmark against wich
>   contervailing proposals didn't have any use against existing
>   practice
>   <Laura> Group members have fundamental differences with them.
>   LM: my question is that the document itself may be reasonable but
>   the practice in which the document has been used may not which is
>   the nature of my concern
>   AvK: that sounded really vague and incoherent and my scribing might
>   have reflected that for which I apoligize
>   <Laura> There has been no meeting of the minds on the content of the
>   design principles.
>   LM: my question was whether publishing the document today would
>   actually describe the practices we use today
>   <dsinger> why does the document need to be published or gain any
>   more status? it's a guideline to help move the group along, isn't
>   it, and hence internal?
>   AvK: to answer dsinger's question it has been published at some
>   point so it's not internal
>   SR: it was on the agenda because Maciej wrote an email to address an
>   issue and LC had concerns
>   ... I'm happy to move it forward or leave it as is
>   <Laura> If we are not going to have another poll to find out if we
>   have real consensus of the content of the principles document, I
>   propose that the entire document be obsoleted.
>   LM: I'm ok with leaving it as historical anecdote
>   DS: I think it helps as a general document documenting the way we
>   think
>   ... I don't think it's useful as rulebook
>   AvK: I agree with DS and would be happy to leave it as is
>   DS: I'll ping Maciej
>   SR: great
>   <Laura> If it is decided to publish the document as a note anyway, I
>   propose that at a minimum, a disclaimer is attached saying:
>   DougS: I think it is worth noting that when we first discussed these
>   TimBL chimed on to say they are not useful as rule but more as
>   describing how people arrived somewhere. they are mostly used as a
>   rhetorical tool, in practice
>   <Laura> "Publication of this document does not constitute
>   endorsement. There is no working group consensus on the content of
>   these principles but it was decided that further effort to refine
>   them and gain consensus was not a productive use of time.
>   [For the minutes: DS might refer to both DaveS and DougS before I
>   started using DougS. Sorry!]
>   <masinter> i would question whether they reflect actually how
>   decisions were made
Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 08:16:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:50:02 UTC