Re: Moratorium on the spec-splitting discussion

Sam Ruby wrote:

> And if I can't succeed at diverting the meta and meta-meta discussion 
> elsewhere; I will simply do the reverse: request a list specifically for 
> discussing concrete proposals for improving the spec.  An express lane, 
> as it were.

Much as I understand your motivation, Sam, I do not
think that such an approach can work.  During a formal
debate, if a delegate moves "point of order", the
Chairman does not invite those wishing to consider the
point of order to go off into another room, nor does
he invite those who wish to discuss only the substantive
motion to continue to do so, whilst those who wish
to discuss the point of order are somehow sidelined.
Instead, the point of order is discussed, the Chairman
rules, and the substantive debate moves on.  That is
(IMHO) what needs to happen here : let us agree, once
and for all, whether the normative specification can
consist of a number of discrete parts (such as Mike
[tm] Smith's document describing HTML 5 Markup, aimed
primarily at HTML authors), or whether it should consist
of a single document that attempts to address the needs
of every possible constituency (such as Ian Hickson's
current draft specification), and then move on.  If we
cannot do that, then despite your best intentions I cannot
see this Specification ever reaching the stage of becoming
a formal W3C Recommendation.

Philip TAYLOR

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 11:43:25 UTC