Re: Alternate HTML 5 adoption proposal? (Was Re: Level of specification detail)

Sorry about the previous message; I accidentally sent it before I could
catch it.

On Wed, April 11, 2007 1:26 pm, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2007, at 22:34, Matthew Ratzloff wrote:
>> and discuss and adopt (or reject) the
>> individual parts of #2 in a piecemeal fashion.
> I think splitting up the spec and (mostly) reassembling it isn't a
> productive way of working, so I am opposed to your proposal.

What is your reasoning?

>> I think we can all agree that increased implementation specificity is
>> desirable.  On the other hand, I (and it seems some others) worry
>> that it will be far more difficult to remove certain aspects once
>> they're "in the spec" than it will be to adopt them one or two at a
>> time.
> Do you have specific parts of the spec that you'd like to reject? Why
> would you like to reject them?

Examination of WHAT WG HTML changes will govern the work of this group for
some time to come, so I don't think it would be useful to bring up those
points now.

> I am opposed to certain details of the Web Apps 1.0 draft myself, but
> I trust that Hixie will properly consider my feedback--and yours also.

The W3C HTML specification is determined by group consensus, not solely by
the opinion of a single arbiter, no matter how influential he may be in
the group.  I understand what you are saying, I just disagree quite
strongly with the way it is worded.  :-)

Furthermore, it's my opinion that the changes to HTML described in WHAT
WG's specification should have to fight against inertia, not the other way
around.  Inertia is a powerful force.  If an idea is a good one it should
have no problem standing up to scrutiny.


Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 22:30:30 UTC