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

RE: biased surveys and other tricks

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:40:35 -0800
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8B62A039C620904E92F1233570534C9B0118C8514F3E@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>
# http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg@webstandardsgroup.org/msg38188.html 

This is a much more useful a characterization of current state,
and does provide some context. It doesn't seem to recast the question, 
though, and it's not clear that the question even reaches the
constituency affected.

If it's not clear, I'd like to see HTML-WG produce specifications
that are useful (as specifications to be referenced in development,
as well as cited and used by customers) to makers of web authoring
tools (like Adobe Dreamweaver) and back-end web site tools
(like Adobe Cold Fusion), web site capture tools and document-to-
HTML conversion tools (like those in Adobe Acrobat and Acrobat.com),
collaborative authoring tools (like Adobe Buzzword), among others.

The current specification seems to have been developed primarily
for and by browser implementers as the first and foremost audience.
While there have also been some attempts to produce additional 
aspects that also meet the needs of the rest of the community, 
the primary feedback I've gotten is that the current HTML5 spec 
is impenetrable, and that attempts at splitting out separate 
aspects would be valuable to these other communities.

I'm not willing to guarantee that Mike Smith's document meets their
needs, but the notion that we shouldn't even try goes against
what I think I'm being asked to accomplish in HTML WG, and 
so I am arguing for its publication and development, at least
to the point where its utility as a separate can be evaluated

I also hope the documents proposed by Lachlan and DanC (whose
work Adobe is sponsoring) will also prove valuable, and I'm
in favor of the working group addressing the needs of
the various other extended communities.

However, the working group seems to be subject to argumentum
ad nauseum   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam

knocking down strawman proposals

and political posturing.

I applaud attempts to bring some order to the discussion.


Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 19:41:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:41 UTC