Re: [whatwg] Answering the question... (timing of table headers issue)

[Removed whatwg list from Cc list at Ian's request.]

John,

Your request amounts to asking that browser implementors completely  
ignore the current HTML5 draft in the course of ongoing development.  
Sorry, that is not a reasonable request. I decline.

I will add also that I personally don't have a strong opinion on  
whether <input usemap> should be supported or not, or what it should  
do. I never gave an opinion on any mailing list or IRC channel. The  
reason the issue came up at all is that another html working group  
member (Robert Burns) noticed <input usemap> being removed from the  
draft, and thought the appropriate response was to file a bug asking  
for it to be implemented. He omitted the fact that it had been removed  
from the draft and the reasons given for its removal. Our bug tracker  
exists to report problems, not for people to ride their hobby horses.  
I don't know how you even found the bug since it's uncommon for people  
to browse our bug tracker. If I were conspiracy-inclined, I would  
suspect you and Robert of being in a secret cabal to file provocative  
bug reports just so you can complain about the response.

Can we end this silliness now? You have spent more time complaining  
about people expressing their opinions in outside forums than in  
actually providing research or close review that would help improve  
the spec. I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but it is  
starting to seem like your only goal here is to create conflict.

Regards,
Maciej



On Aug 24, 2007, at 11:27 AM, John Foliot wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> This isn't my advice to the WebKit developers, this is my comment  
>> on a
>> bug report *as* a WebKit developer.
>
> However, is it the comment of a WebKit developer or as a member of  
> the HTML5
> Working Group?  This lack of transparency lends the impression that  
> the spec
> is being unduly influenced by how and what are priorities of the  
> browser
> makers, rather than of the end users. Since repeatedly the chairs  
> have said
> that nothing has been decided, stating that something is likely to be
> dropped is premature and to my mind inappropriate.  To comment that  
> it is
> being questioned/reviewed is one thing, to predict an outcome is  
> another -
> especially since you *are* a member of the Working Group.
>
> How different would this be if another member of the Working Group,  
> one who
> did not share the same opinions as the IRC cabal, went around to the  
> various
> bug trackers and stated that LONGDESC is going to be entrenched into  
> HTML5
> as an attribute of <video>, and so next-gen browsers should be  
> prepared to
> support this?  Or that based upon the current position of the WAI PF,
> headers will continue to remain in the Specification, and that  
> browsers
> should have better support?  Since nothing has been decided, why  
> should
> these *opinions* be treated any differently? Because they are not the
> current opinions on the IRC channel gang?  Think very carefully  
> about the
> optics here...
>
>>
>> Is it wrong for implementors to look at past specs, other
>> implementations, or the ongoing web standards process in making
>> decisions on what to implement? In fact, is it even a matter that
>> should be discussed on a bunch of web standards mailing lists, rather
>> than in the bug tracker?
>
> Well, given that HTML5 is intended to be the next HTML Standard,  
> darned
> right it is a matter that should be discussed on W3C Standards mailing
> lists.  That you even would question this leaves me dumbfounded -  
> where else
> would you discuss emerging standards?  Backroom IRC channels?
>
> Who exactly is this new standard being written for anyway?  Having  
> the major
> browser makers on board is an important consideration in crafting the
> Standard, but the day they start making all of the decisions  
> (apparently
> behind semi-closed doors) is the day that the Accessibility  
> advocates such
> as myself start to become extremely concerned - and if you have not  
> yet
> picked up on this it's time you did.  It is *exactly* this kind of
> leveraging that leaves us feeling that we are being humored but not  
> taken
> seriously, and having WG members making public statements about what  
> is and
> what is not going to be in the Standard further fuels this concern -
> especially when the co-chairs keep try to assure us nothing has been
> decided.
>
> Simply put, if nothing has been decided about the new spec, nothing  
> should
> be posted on blogs, bug trackers or any other forum that says  
> otherwise:
> else there are conflicting messages, and continued conflict.  What  
> is so
> hard to understand about that?
>
> JF
>
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>
>

Received on Friday, 24 August 2007 19:12:20 UTC