Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD

On Aug 9, 2009, at 5:50 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:

> Marking every disagreement in the HTML5 spec is not the goal, as it
> would be difficult to implement. Besides, we have an issue tracker for
> that particular purpose (tracking bug reports).

Agree strongly on this - marking every disagreement in the spec would  
be useless.

> Basically, when I saw something that has or could trigger a perma- 
> thread
> discussion surrounding a feature (such as @summary did for the last  
> two
> weeks), I marked the feature as controversial.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think you failed to successfully  
identify the set of "perma-thread" issues. To pick some obvious  
examples, I can't see any basis for declaring <bb> to be a perma- 
thread (where there are a few very recent pieces of feedback and no  
debate as of yet), or declaring garbage collection behavior to be a  
perma-thread (where I don't recall a single piece of formal feedback  
objecting to the section in question).

> I agree with most of the comments that assert that we will need a  
> better
> metric going forward. The one I used is based on observation and while
> that may be passable for this iteration of the spec, it must be  
> improved
> before publishing the next iteration.

I don't believe the current set of markers is passable. To be clear  
about my comments: I'm saying we need a better metric starting now,  
not just going forward.

> I'm open to ideas and suggestions
> on other sections that should be marked as controversial (including
> reasoning as to why they should be considered controversial - links to
> papers, discussions, perma-threads, etc. would be helpful).

Documentation is good. Maybe a good starting point would be to provide  
this information for your proposed issue markers. This might result in  
a smaller set of markers, given the limited time. I think that is ok.

I can get behind marking the truly controversial issues, but I insist  
on a more objective standard. I would vote yes for a draft with issue  
markers based on a clear standard. I don't think I could vote for your  
proposed draft.


Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 01:13:11 UTC