- From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:30:56 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >> On Aug 13, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Shelley Powers wrote: >> >>> What makes you think I haven't been doing any kind of edits, to >>> match any of the criticisms I've made[1]. I don't whip things out >>> half-assed. I won't put anything online until I know I've gone >>> through it and made sure all the i's are dotted, the t's crossed. It >>> doesn't have to be bullet proof, but I would hope it could withstand >>> at least a little shaking. >> >> I have no way of knowing the content of your private edits. For edits >> to be relevant for the group to consider, we have to see it. If you'd >> like to post something, I'd be glad to provide technical review. >> >>> >>> I realize that others may be faster, and that's cool. I admire >>> people who can put together a spec document quick as an eye blink. I >>> can't. So don't assume because I haven't whipped anything out that >>> I'm not making edits to the copy of the HTML 5 document I downloaded. >>> >>> Frankly, I'm not so sanguine about the whole "create alternative >>> spec text and submit it for discussion", as others seem to be. I'll >>> wait and see what happens with Manu's spec text, but how the third >>> poll question is worded seems to make it especially difficult for >>> Manu's work to succeed. I'm assuming the same fate rests with other >>> efforts, too. But that's just me, others could be more positive >>> about the approach. >> >> I think breaking out portions of the spec where Ian agrees in >> principle with the split has a decent track record. XMLHttpRequest, >> MIMESNIFF, WEBADDRESS/IRIbis, WebSocket, Web Storage and Web Database >> have all been successfully split out, the last three by Hixie >> himself. That being said, it's a lot of work and a big ongoing time >> commitment to edit a breakout spec. I know because I tried once and >> failed. I made a split out Window Object spec which fell way behind >> and which I had to abandon. >> >>> >>> But this isn't about me, or about who is tweaking the text. People >>> have expressed interest in being involved in this effort. I want to >>> see if this interest still exists. If not, then I won't bring up >>> this issue again to this group. I will still do the edits, because I >>> want to show what my changes would look like, for my own sense of >>> accomplishment. I won't dump them on the group, though. Frankly, >>> I'll most likely just quit, and do my own thing in my own space. I >>> have a couple of raised issues, but I have no concerns that one at >>> least will find a new owner (Issue 76). And chances are, no one is >>> interested in the other (Issue 77), anyway, and it can just be closed. >> >> Threatening to quit (for the umpteenth time) is not constructive and >> not a good use of the group's time. I know this mailing list can be >> tense at times, but no one is attacking you here. I believe the >> majority of the group is totally open to RenderContext2D and the >> related interfaces being split into a separate spec, if an editor >> steps up. No one is stopping you from becoming that person. > > Maciej: Characterizing Shelley's statement as a threat is not helpful. > > Shelley: the current operating assumption is that splitting canvas out > is a lot of work for very little gain. You've made great progress in > identifying the gain in terms that people here can understand. What's > needed is progress on the other side. The reality is that canvas will > not be removed from any W3C draft of HTML5 (Ian's or otherwise) until > there is a credible possibility that it can be done. Showing your > intermediary work (and it can even be on your own site) is an > important part of that process. > >> Regards, >> Maciej >> >>> Believe it or not, I have no interest in wasting the group's time. >>> >>> Shelley >>> >>> [1] http://realtech.burningbird.net/html5-story-progress > > - Sam Ruby > > I responded to Maciej on the www-archives list, Sam. Shelley
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 20:31:40 UTC