W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Editor and authors

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:42:48 +0300
Message-Id: <E332138E-BDE9-4EA7-83FA-18AA45B1355A@iki.fi>
Cc: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>

On Apr 20, 2007, at 11:34, Karl Dubost wrote:

> * It is *very* satisfying for members of the WG to be able to say I  
> have written this part.

I don't like the above point at all as part of rationale for a  
particular way of working.

I think the WG should choose working methods that are optimized for  
producing the best possible spec over working methods that are  
optimized for making people feel good about having made their mark.

Considering what has been discussed so far and considering experience  
from the WHATWG, I believe that having Hixie as the editor who also  
produces the prose based on feedback and having WG members repeatedly  
review the draft (ideally by reading the SVN logs) is the way of  
working that optimizes spec quality.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Friday, 20 April 2007 09:43:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:19 UTC