- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:12:56 +0100
- To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Gregory, On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:40:21 +0100, Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net> wrote: >> Overall, I don't think we should take these principles too strongly and >> just see them as one of the many inputs the HTML 5 specification has. As >> the HDP document says, these are rules of thumb. > > 1. why have a principles document if we shouldn't take them too > "strongly" Because it informs people why certain things are the way they are. The document is advisory and non-normative (informative if you will), as far as I'm concerned. (Also as far as the decided status for this document goes, W3C Note.) > and seriously? despite your personal feelings, a statement of Design > Principles is an essential step in getting the HTML5 draft published as a > working group draft -- without consensus on HDP, we have no guiding > principles, but are left in the morass of competing philosophies, > quasi-religious fanaticism, and talking-by and around one another that > has plagued and retarded the work of the HTML WG so far... I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with this I'm afraid. > 2. if the principles document isn't a high priority for you, anne, why > not let someone else edit the document? Do you have a volunteer in mind? The sole reason I made several edits to the document this morning was because Maciej didn't have the bandwidth. As I said before, I expected not to do any work on it again. > 3. it has been repeatedly pointed out that the term "rules of thumb" > carries unnecessary baggage, and should not be used in the HDP document Can you provide some pointers for that? > 4. if the document fails to be issued as an updated editors draft before > the end of the week, i propose that the issue of the HDP editorship be > revisited, as the maintainers of that document have not only shown a > disinclination to listen to and seriously consider feedback from the WG, > but have shown no sense of urgency in updating the document and entering > into a dialog with those who take the HDP document seriously... Have you even looked at the document? It has been revised. I did that this morning. Also, see my statements earlier about volunteers and bandwidth. > although you have since posted that you changed the HDP draft to reflect > the conversation on the issue at the 1 november 2007 teleconference, i > am still troubled by the overall approach to the document as articulated > in your response to steven faulkner I'm not sure what you mean by this. I actually worked with Steven, Henri, Lachlan, Philip, Stephen, and Dan on IRC this morning (Amsterdam time) and made several edits as a result. There's at least one e-mail to the mailing list that summarizes that effort. You can have a look at the result for yourself: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/principles/ > moreover, i find the mention of accessibility in the draft completely > pro forma and essentially meaningless -- what happened to the request > that markup explicitly introduced for accessibility, > internationalization and > device independence continue to be supported? Didn't Henri already explain to you that that is not a design principle? This is not a requirements document on the next version of HTML, it simply explains some of the design rationale. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 19:13:04 UTC