- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:03:16 -0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> The question is how to fix number three. Rob (and Roy and Phillip?)
>> believe that the solution is
>>
>> (a) Break up the spec.
>> (b) Leave Ian with the non-parsing portions, that seem to interest
>> him most.
>> (c) Have someone else deal with parsing.
>
> I assume that Ian has said something that implies (b).
>
> I have no problem with this, assuming the order is:
>
> 1) Find someone else to deal with parsing
> 2) Split up the spec
> 3) Leave Ian top deal with the non-parsing portions, and have the
> someone else deal with parsing
>
> That assumes that said person is going to actually stick to our charter
> in terms of parsing compatibility, of course.
>
> It also assumes the resulting overhead of reconciling the multiple specs
> will be lower than the overhead of just editing them (something that
> Ian's probably the one to ask about).
I think that if we make the order something like
1) Find someone else to deal with portion X
2) Verify that this person understands the HTML 5 charter and the HTML
design principles and agrees to honor them.
3) Let this new person publish a draft for this portion
4) Verify that the new draft defines X as well or better than what is
in the HTML 5 spec today.
5) Verify that the new draft is being edited as effectively as portion X
in HTML 5 spec is today by Ian.
6) Remove the relevant sections from the HTML5 spec.
we can be fairly sure that there is a net gain. Though of course the
bigger portion X is the more sure we will have to be that the editor
won't drop the job on the floor as has happened several times in the
past once the editors realized the scope of the work involved.
/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 23:01:07 UTC