Re: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)

Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>> "For better or worse, the HTML WG is operating under a CTR process."
>>> I mispoke.
>> Ok, but the facts on the ground speak for themselves: micro-data was
>> included in the spec without any attempt at consensus, and now it's
>> about to go out as a working draft, again without any attempt at
>> consensus.
> I stopped reading your email at this point.
> I believe that have been attempts at consensus and that you and
> everybody else in the working group has every opportunity to influence
> this.  As evidence, I will cite the following four emails:

Okay, maybe I misspoke.

You are certainly leading an effort at consensus *now* with regards to
which document(s) to publish. I respect that effort and the progress
you've made tremendously. It is a breath of fresh air compared to the
previous process.

However, I strongly disagree if you mean to say that consensus on which
draft(s) to publish for Heartbeat implies consensus on the contents of
Ian's draft. *That*'s what I was addressing: we have, given the facts on
the ground, a CTR process for Ian's draft, and given the prominence of
Ian's draft to this point, a CTR process for the HTML WG.

> I will further state that the *ONLY* reason that the RDFa draft isn't
> going to be an option on Monday's poll is the following email:

Perfectly understandable. In that context, your decision makes sense. As
I've mentioned before, I'm trying very hard to separate the specific
issue of RDFa from the process issue within the HTML WG. (Note this
email you refer was sent mine.)

> I suggest you take the time to read the emails I cited and to talk with
> Manu.

I have, and, on this issue, Manu and I disagree.

I think if you ask web developers, they will assume that the content of
a published working draft represents a pretty good snapshot in time of
current consensus within the working group, unless an area of the text
is specifically called out as being experimental and not having
consensus. Certainly, that is how other W3C specs are interpreted.
That's why I think publishing only Ian's draft is a mistake.

That said, I have said enough. Though I disagree with Manu on this
issue, I won't try to override his wishes.


Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 19:19:10 UTC