- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:38:08 -0400
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, WHATWG <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
On Thursday 2009-07-23 09:48 -0400, Manu Sporny wrote: > http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/a-new-way-forward/ I have a few thoughts on this document. The above document says: # The single greatest complaint heard from the standards community # concerning the development of HTML5 is that it has not allowed # for the scientific process. I strongly disagree with this statement. A key part of a scientific process is that the starting point is evidence. I think the development process of HTML5 gives arguments based on evidence more weight than any other W3C work I've been involved in, and has put more effort into gathering relevant evidence than any other W3C work I've been involved in. This is a good thing. Regarding the section "Action: Splitting HTML5 into Logically Targeted Documents", I agree that there is value in splitting the specification. However, I see significant danger in the way you propose to split it: separating the specification of what is available to authors and what should be implemented means the specification risks promising to authors what cannot be implemented, or cannot be implemented at a cost proportionate to the benefit (as HTML4 did in a number of places). I'm a little bit puzzled by the inclusion of the section "Problem: Partial Distributed Extensibility": it seems to be a technical issue (although a far-reaching one) in a document otherwise about process issues. I'm not sure it belongs in this discussion. Finally, regarding the section "Problem: Disregarding Input from the Accessibility Community". I think some of the input that has been ignored or has been felt to be ignored is input that is difficult to act on. Specification development ought to work from requirements to solutions rather than straight to solutions. This is done to make sure that the requirements are addressed, to make sure that the specification does not become more complicated than needed to address the requirements, and (most importantly in this case) to avoid unresolvable debates between parties that are emotionally attached to particular technical solutions. I think a number of the arguments that have been ignored (e.g., some of the arguments over @headers or @summary) have been arguments made *in the face of* evidence that the particular technical solutions do not work in practice, and without presenting the requirements that are not addressed by the HTML5 specification's replacements for those particular (non-functioning) solutions. I think such arguments ought to be ignored, ignoring them is not a problem, and giving those who make them and then complain that they are ignored the power to edit the specification would be a mistake. However, I think HTML5 specification reflects significant consideration for the needs of disabled users, and I strongly encourage more input regarding use cases for and requirements of disabled users that the specification fails to meet. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 14:38:48 UTC