Re: HTML5-warnings - motivations (was: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD)

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Jonas Sicking<> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Jonas Sicking<> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Manu Sporny<> wrote:
>>> You and Ian are questioning my motives for asking for the HTML5-warnings
>>> document to be published as a WD. Rather than let you assert what my
>>> intentions are, we should address these dubious claims head on:
>>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>>> html5-warnings-diff.html#microdata
>>>>Here I think we see the real reason you are doing this.
>>> ...
>>>> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>>> It seems to me the idea of the draft is to deliver
>>>> html5-warnings-diff.html#microdata
>>> Both of you are out of line.
>>> You are also flat out wrong. It is no surprise that the HTML5
>>> specification doesn't have more editors if even warnings about spec
>>> language is met with these types of accusations. You undermine the HTML5
>>> effort by doing so.
>> For the record I agree that those comments were not helpful and would
>> have strongly preferred if they had been left out.
>> That said, I do agree with Maciej that the current set of warnings
>> seem very arbitrary and would like to see some sort hard and fast
>> rule. For example I think it would be better to mark up things that
>> have turned into perma-threads, rather than attempting to mark up ones
>> that might turn into perma-threads.
> Ugh, forgot to include the initial reason for my message.
> While I don't necessarily fully agree with your draft, the fact that
> you have made a serious effort to produce a draft is enough for me to
> support publication of it.
> Like Maciej said in another thread on another topic, in collaborative
> efforts such as open source projects I generally see two categories of
> people, the ones that just complain and demand that things change
> around them before they will constructively contribute, and the ones
> that steps up to task and actually attempts to fix things. I'm very
> glad to see that you belong to the second group.
> Now you'll get to enjoy the privilege of dealing with people from the
> the first group mentioned above :)

I guess I should also qualify that I support publishing your draft in
*addition* to Ians, not instead of.

/ Jonas

Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 19:39:31 UTC