Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-02-06

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