- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:43:37 -0800
- To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
# The 'survey' was not meant to be biased in any particular direction # (though people may think that I am pro HTML5 amrk up spec), it has # been pointed out the term "fullblown" was subjective and by # implication pejorative. I don't think most of the bias is intentional. Some of it is structural bias, and some is just indirect (a biased organization selects to amplify the voices of individuals with existing biases.) # The lack of context was driven by the constraint of having to fit the # question and associated links in to tweet limit of 140 characters. Since you give short URIs to the specs, you could have given a short URI to a longer description of the question. # I asked (I thought) a clearer question to the WSG mailing list # http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg@webstandardsgroup.org/msg38186.html It was a longer expression, but still contained the same biased mischaracterization of the question asked: whether the working group should embark on attempting to develop the markup spec into something useful, and not (as implied) whether the first draft of a new document is as useful as a fully established and long-standing existing one. (There were other parts of the survey that are also questionable but I don't think that's the point here.) # If you wish to do another "survey" with a less biased framing # of the question go ahead. I thought I would first try to get working group members like you to respond to the actual question being asked, rather than continuing to knock down a strawman. # regards # stevef Regards back, Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 18:44:20 UTC