- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:22:36 +0100
- To: public-html-wg-announce@w3.org
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
I regret I am at an MPEG meeting and cannot dial in, as discussions are ongoing... On the spec. splitting discussion, I offer the following points in an attempt to clear at least my mind: * on literally splitting up the spec. that currently exists, and having multiple editors and/or published documents, I believe the editor (Ian) thinks this is more work rather than less, and doesn't advance things, and I tend to defer to him; * on whether the 'base material' of the current single monolith could be 'profiled/reduced' by automated pre-processing so as to make documents better suited to various audiences, I think the answer is yes, and this seems like a nice idea, worth pursuing; * on whether there should be additional, non-normative, documents that help inform, educate, or assist various communities, I think there is enthusiastic support and little opposition; the more we help and inform, the better! * on whether the 'reference', complete, normative spec. is likely to be indigestible, I tend to think so, but it should exist; I think the remaining unease concerns whether there should be multiple documents, independently produced (i.e. not derived by an automated process from a common base), that overlap and all/both are normative. I think this causes a number of people significant unease. That unease results in the suggestion that if we put another document on a track to publication, we make it clear either that it's intended to be published as informative, or that its final publication status is undecided while we grapple with this issue. We should not have an implied decision of normativity result from an explicit decision to pursue publication. Hope that helps; feel free to ignore me if not... -- David Singer Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 13:23:34 UTC