- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:24:43 +0100
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jan 28, 2009, at 17:48 , David Singer wrote:
> B) Publish the HTML5 document as normative, and the Markup language
> as informative
> (...)
> Are we really hearing a lot of objection to (B)?
Or simply publish it with a clear warning that the WG does not know if
this document will end up being normative or not, but wants it out
there because Publishing is Good. We can change our minds about its
normativity any number of times between now and when it gets published
as a Rec or as a WG Note. In fact, we can even change our minds again
after that by putting the Note on the Rec track or issuing a Rescinded
Recommendation and putting it back as a Note — the Process is fun that
way and springs eternal in its commanding wisdom.
Working groups always get cold feet about FPWDs, even with
uncontroversial documents, I don't know why. Publishing is good, it
makes a milestone on which one can get perspective. In fact the
current level of discussion on this topic makes me believe this really
needs publishing, badly. If the document is good/bad/useful/useless/
harmful/benevolent/shiny/pretty-in-pink it'll be a whole lot more
obvious in hindsight.
Just slap a <div class='scaryWarning'>The working group is in dissent
about whether this document should be normative or simply informative,
we welcome feedback on this issues. Read at your own risk. May contain
heavy machinery. Do not operate nuts after reading.</div> and publish,
publish, publish.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 20:31:00 UTC