- From: Ben 'Cerbera' Millard <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 18:37:22 +0100
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: "HTMLWG" <public-html@w3.org>
On 29th June 2007, Lachlan Hunt wrote [1]: > In fact, keeping detailed rationale out of the document will help to keep > the document more neutral and objective, particularly in the early stages of development. Indeed. * By solely reporting facts it can only be faulted on factual inaccuracies. * It would be even more concise if rationales were removed. * It requires less editorial work if each fact it reports can stand alone. I would not like to see *more* rationales added to this document. I *am* happy to see version 1.25 [2] published so we meet the heartbeat requirement [3], but I might suggest specific text changes to remove them afterwards. The rationales are already public. But they are buried in two mailing lists [3][4] and some IRC archives [5] and a web forum [6] and *at least* one blog [7]. More like 5 blogs, IIRC. Creating a "Rationales for HTML5 Features" document might be helpful. But it would need a lot of effort which I'm not willing to set aside but maybe others would. I could live without it but maybe others can't? [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/1033.html> [2] <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/html4-differences/Overview.html?rev=1.25&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1> [3] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/> [4] <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/> [5] <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/> [6] <http://forums.whatwg.org/> [7] <http://blog.whatwg.org/> Ben 'Cerbera' Millard --------------------------------- Collections of Interesting Tables <http://sitesurgeon.co.uk/!dev/tables/>
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2007 17:37:55 UTC