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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:57:23 -0500
Message-ID: <4983B003.2020904@intertwingly.net>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: public-html <public-html@w3.org>

Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com> wrote:
>> Hi Henri,
>> On Jan 30, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>> Thank you for sharing this with the WG. (Others in the WG may also be
>>> interested in the IRC discussion from yesterday logged at:
>>> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20090129#l-116 )
>>> It bothers me that it wasn't stated up front that private feedback in
>>> general and from the W3C Team in particular was a major motivating factor
>>> behind "HTML 5: The Markup Language". (Or if this has been stated before, I
>>> haven't properly noticed it.)
>>> The HTML5 effort has been criticized for Hixie taking private feedback
>>> into account in his editing of "HTML 5". However, Hixie has at least readily
>>> disclosed that private feedback has motivated notable editing choices.
>>> Given the recent suggestion that the WG needs some ground rules for taking
>>> on new drafts, I'd like to suggest that one of the ground rules be that
>>> editors disclose to the WG when a draft or a section of a draft comes into
>>> existence in response to private feedback the whole group isn't seeing. (Of
>>> course, I'd prefer even more openness.)
>> As long as Ian Hickson is the editor of the main deliverable, I don't think
>> we're going to get more openness. He's made it clear that he wants all
>> decisions made within the confines of his own mind, with no "others"
>> undermining that process. As long as that is the modus operandi for the WG,
>> openness is the most inappropriate word imaginable to describe the
>> activities of this WG.
> If that is the case I strongly disagree with such a decision process.
> Can you point out where either Hixie or someone else said that this is
> the process we use, or where a formal or informal decision was made
> within the WG to allow for such a decision process.

Here are two such links, and the first contains a further link:


My thoughts on how to resolve the issue, the third being the one that is 
most to the point on this discussion, and is the reason why I intend to 
vote 'yes' if^h^hwhen we proceed to the poll mentioned in my previous email:


- Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 31 January 2009 01:58:03 UTC

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