- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:43:38 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > Shelley Powers wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >>> >>> Shelley Powers wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> If someone publishes a Working Draft with many differences, can we >>>>>> discuss each, or is it a case of all or nothing? >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand the question. >>>> >>>> Sorry, I wasn't very clear. >>>> >>>> Let's say an alternative draft changes how summary is handled, the >>>> microdata section, and various other pieces of the Editor's draft. I'm >>>> assuming we could propose the entire new draft, but we could also >>>> propose each section, by itself. One document, multiple proposals. >>>> Does that sound about right to folks? >>> >>> I'm still not following. Propose as what? Perhaps I have been confused >>> because what we have in front of us is a proposal to publish a Working >>> Draft. >> >> Propose as alternatives to the specific section in the Editor's draft. > > I don't believe that we need to constrain ourselves to be talking about the > (as in one) Editor's draft. > >>> Meanwhile, we have people working on Issue 32. They aren't looking to >>> rewrite the entire document. I'll note that the early drafts I have seen >>> made by a number of members of the PFWG on how they would like to see >>> summary handled involve coordinated changes to a number of different >>> sections. >> >> I'm not talking about Issue 32, I'm talking about procedure moving >> forward. >> >> Up to now, the edits have been related to one issue. There is a good >> possibility of upcoming alternative HTML 5 specifications being >> related to multiple issues. > > Between the last published Working Draft and the current Working Draft > (April 23rd) and the next one (August xx), quite a few changes were made > relating to any number of issues. > > At least three people proposed to come forward with alternative working > drafts that address multiple perceived deficiencies in Ian's draft. Each > (with the possible exception of Manu's) intended to address multiple issue. > To date, none of them have been presented for consideration by the working > group. > >>> I guess it comes down to what the meaning of "proposal" is. Ultimately, >>> I >>> see it as a set of diffs when applied to a document produces a new >>> document. >>> Such diffs need not be constrained by section boundaries. >> >> You see it as technology, I'm seeing it as a process. I don't want the >> group's process to be dictated by the proposed technology, Sam. > > You seem to be inferring how I might see things and are reacting to that. > > I see it as one or more Working Drafts. Possibly in parallel. Possibly in > succession. Possibly with the same editors that have produced the previous > drafts. Possibly with a different set of editors. > > New Versions (independent of their source) may address multiple issues that > are present in prior (or concurrent) drafts. > > I don't know how to say this any clearer. Let me know if a phone call would > help. > >>> - Sam Ruby >> >> Shelley > > - Sam Ruby > I do not need a phone call, Sam, unless you want to talk to me so I can my point more clearly to you. Shelley
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 19:44:13 UTC