- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:21:36 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > > But I've already explained this many times before, so I don't know why > > you keep bringing this up. > > Perhaps it is because (and this is from your later reply to Jeff[1]): > [...] > > As an outside observer, what I observe is that somehow assumptions > become crystalized into decisions, at times with little or no visibility > being provided into the process. It's certainly true that I don't document all the reasoning that goes into HTML5. I agree that it would be great if it was all documented. Unfortunately I simply don't have the bandwidth to document everything. Typically a cursory explanation is given in the e-mails I send out (e.g. the one that I sent to this very list in which I replied to over 600 e-mails on the subject of supporting non-HTML vocabularies earlier this year), but that typically only contains a small fraction of the complete reasoning. To be honest, my hands hurt enough just from writing everything that ends up in the spec and from replying to the e-mails that I can't imagine how much they would hurt if I had to document everything I considered and rejected, all the tests I experimented with, etc. We're probably talking tens of thousands of pages of documentation here. Just because it's not documented doesn't mean it wasn't considered carefully, though. Maybe next time we meet in person we can spend a few hours going through the process of considering the proposals you have raised, and then you can document the reasoning for me? That would be very helpful, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in it. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 20:22:13 UTC