- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:46:22 -0700
- To: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
I'd like to request that the chairs call the question (using whatever decision procedure is appropriate) on the proposal to adopt the WHATWG specs from Apple, Mozilla and Opera. There has been sufficient time for discussion, and the public feedback has been overwhelmingly in favor. Dan Connolly asked me to consider whether there are any worthwhile proposed amendments to this proposal. I have seen two basic categories of possible amendment: 1) Some people have proposed that instead of adopting HTML5's WHATWG wholesale, and then refining it (including possibly removing, adding and changing parts of it), we should start with a blank slate and adopt single sections at a time. So far as public feedback on the list goes, I think this view was expressed by a relatively small minority, and none of them seemed to feel very strongly about the issue. So I am not inclined to consider this alternative a friendly amendment. I can double-check with the other signatories of the proposal if that would help. 2) There has been some disagreement with the nomination of Ian Hickson as (sole) editor. I count one "why not try someone new?" and one "-1" on the public list. There has also been a great deal of feedback specifically praising Ian's spec-writing skills. Some have also privately suggested that Ian shouldn't be sole editor. But so far, no other editors or editing teams have been nominated on the public list (though some have alluded to having candidates in mind). If I have the choice between just Ian and Ian + Mystery Person X, then I prefer just Ian. If anyone has a specific proposed alternative, they need to state it publicly. Failing that, Ian is the only candidate to have been nominated. One thing to keep in mind is that adding more editors will not necessarily increase speed or quality of work. Indeed, it may harm both. So if anyone wants to make a nomination of another individual or team for editor(s) please justify why you think it would be more effective. Ian was first nominated for editor by Håkon over a month ago. He's since been nominated again (and seconded many times), and no one has made any other nominations. Given this, I don't think we need more than a week to allow for other nominations. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:46:55 UTC