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

Re: Who is the Intended Audience of the Markup Spec Proposal?

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:57:45 +0900
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090130065742.GA8951@sideshowbarker>

Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, 2009-01-29 04:12 -0800:

>  On Jan 29, 2009, at 12:46 AM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
> > I guess I would have to say it seemed to me we had a bit more of
> > an timely need to try to get some kind of resolution about the
> > "language spec" discussion than we did to get the rendering
> > section or whatever else completed.
>  It seems to me that producing the document has not brought us any closer to 
>  resolving that discussion, since we are officially not supposed to be having 
>  the "language spec" discussion and at least one of the chairs would like us 
>  to continue putting off a resolution.

In my opinion at least, I don't think getting resolution on
publishing a WD of this doc requires restarting the larger "spec
splitting" discussion (which was about much more than just the
"language spec" idea). I like the approach that Sam has proposed
-- of having discussions about concrete proposals (so-called
"camera-ready spec text") rather than discussion of speculative
proposals about how the spec could best be split up, but without
anything concrete to actually have a real discussion about.

It seems to me at least that my draft is very much in the spirit
that Sam has outlined. For others who have might have ideas about
how the spec should be split, I would hope my draft would help to
encourage them to take the time to write up some kind of "camera-
ready spec text" along the lines of what Sam has proposed (rather
than re-starting the spec-splitting discussion again with just
non-concrete speculative proposals).

>  I am curious - how do you see us coming to resolution on this issue?

By coming to some decision about terms under which we can get
general agreement to publish the draft as a WD.

>  Is the document having the benefits you expected for resolving it?

Yes, actually. It's allowed us to have a specific discussion about
one concrete proposal instead of having a meta-discussion about an
unbounded number of non-concrete speculative proposals. And
actually, I think through your participation and specific comments
in that discussion, you've probably done as much or more than
anybody else to try to help lead to an decision about terms under
which we can get general agreement to publish the doc as a WD.


Michael(tm) Smith
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 06:57:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:42 UTC