- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 18:12:30 -0700
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
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. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 01:13:11 UTC