- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 08:47:40 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I would encourage you to review and update the following wiki > > > > > page: > > > > > > > > > > http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE > > > > > > > > Could you elaborate on how you would like me to update it? > > > > > > Per action 126[1], I would like to see that the Wiki page adequately > > > reflects both (all) viewpoints. If you have nothing to add at this > > > time, that's fine. > > > > [...] What kind of content should I add? What structure is going to be > > of most help in finding consensus? > > I did not prepare that wiki page, my understanding is that it was > prepared in order to help facilitate a vote, and that those who were in > favor of having a vote were actively working on preparing the text that > people would vote on. I think if we want text to support a vote, one plan of action that might be more effective than jointly editing the above wiki would be for interested parties to send in 150-word essays that could be included with the vote, and which people could read before voting. That way, each "side" gets to put forward their opinion, and we limit the total amount of content that people might be exposed to. (I am confident that if we asked people to read the above wiki, they'd ignore most of it.) Would that be acceptable? (To avoid ambiguity, I would define "word count" as the number output by the "wc" Unix command line program with the -w argument.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 08:48:19 UTC