W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: ACTION-95, ISSUE-65: Plan to publish a new WD of HTML-5

From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:34:01 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>,Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

At 11:04 AM 1/28/2009 +0100, James Graham wrote:
>Julian Reschke wrote:
>>Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>Not optimised nor indeed _intended_ for such an audience. The draft is 
>>>clear that it is intended to be a "tutorial" or "how to" authoring 
>>>guide. Web designers and Webmasters aren't asking for a normative 
>>>specification with lines like:
>>Actually, that's exactly what I am asking for (and have been for a long 
>>time). So please do not over-generalize.
>At risk of stating the blindingly obvious, people who have joined the 
>HTMLWG are not very representative of the population as a whole in this 
>area. So I guess a more accurate statement rephrasing of Hixie's statement 
>would be "The overwhelming majority of Web designers and Webmasters aren't 
>asking for a normative specification with lines like:[...]". However I 
>would have thought that it was obvious to everyone that there are always 
>exceptions to (almost all) generalizations and therefore it is 
>unnecessarily verbose to call out that possibility every time it arises. 
>If that is not the case this discussion is going to become unbelievably 
>verbose and tedious.


If you assert that a self-confessed Web designer and web master is not 
of web designers and web masters in general, on what grounds do you assume the
authority to speak on behalf of the vast majority?

Arguments like this are silly.

It would be much more helpful if everyone could try to find the value in 
each others arguments
and work through them in a collegial manner.
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 16:02:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:41 UTC