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

Re: Neutrality in "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4"

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 14:33:14 -0500
Message-Id: <B887AB8D-CC45-4BC5-809E-4CE5B2258B2E@robburns.com>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "HTMLWG" <public-html@w3.org>
To: Ben 'Cerbera' Millard <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>

On Jul 1, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Ben 'Cerbera' Millard wrote:

> 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.

I can't imagine how making something secret makes it more objective.  
Like with Ian, I don't understand how you're using the word 'objective'.

> * By solely reporting facts it can only be faulted on factual  
> inaccuracies.

If we add factual rationales than it still can only be faulted on  
factual inaccuracies. No one is suggesting that rationales be simply  
made up out of thin air and added to the differences document (non- 
factual rationales). Rather we're suggesting that it would be helpful  
 foremost to this WG  to be able to read the methodology (the  
rationale) for how the various decisions to add or remove facilities  
was arrived at. If its done on a use-case basis than, the rationale  
can be why use-cases addressed by HTML4.01 were not seen as important  
enogh to be addressed in HTML5. Or simply providing the new use cases  
for added facilities (like <embed>, <video>, <audio>).

Let me underscore that I am NOT asking to read these rationales  
because I think they are invalid or likely inappropriate. I am asking  
to read these rationales to understand the process used and how to  
apply that process to my own contributions to the WG. I think all the  
members of the WG would benefit from reading about the process behind  
these differences. It will also facilitate much more rapid progress  
by the WG (something that I sense is behind the impulse to rush this  
document to publication).

> * It would be even more concise if rationales were removed.

It would be even more concise to publish nothing. Conciseness is not  
necessarily our goal here.

> * It requires less editorial work if each fact it reports can stand  
> alone.

I'm not sure what that means. How can facts stand alone?

> 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.

Well those buried rationales are the facts should be included in this  
differences document.

Take care,
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2007 19:33:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:23 UTC