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

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:16:16 -0400
Message-ID: <4A6E0B10.6030805@intertwingly.net>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
CC: 'Peter Kasting' <pkasting@google.com>, 'Manu Sporny' <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, 'HTMLWG WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'WHATWG' <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
John Foliot wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> Really? This appears to be exactly the single, special status
>> privilege
>>> currently reserved for Ian Hickson.
>> False.
> 
> ...and yes, I stand corrected.  Although the *impression* that this is the
> current status remains fairly pervasive; however I will endeavor to dispel
> that myth as well.  That said, the barrier to equal entry remains high:
> http://burningbird.net/node/28
> 
> (however, I will also state that Sam has offered on numerous occasions to
> extend help to any that requires = balanced commentary)

My goal is to ensure that there are no excuses not to participate.

I've said that a person can simply go into notepad[3], make the changes, 
and I will take care of the rest.  Manu has documented the process for 
those who prefer to do it themselves[4].  Ian has offered to make the 
changes if somebody can explain the use cases[5].  If people have 
suggestions on how to be even *more* inclusive, I welcome any and all 
suggestions.

Meanwhile, your offer to help dispel that myth is very much appreciated.

>> Both you and Manu have exactly the same ability as Ian does in this
>> respect.  Ian has asked the group for permission to publish, and that
>> was granted.  Manu has produced a document but has yet to request
>> permission to publish as a Working Draft.  You are welcome to do
>> likewise[2].
> 
> While I have personal reservations that this may introduce an even wider
> fork of opinion, making consensus down the road even harder to achieve,
> this is the die that has been cast.  I will offer what contributions I can
> to both Manu and Shelly in their respective initiatives, to the best of my
> ability, and will leave the WHAT WG to continue propagating what I see as
> their mistakes and false assumptions as they see fit - they have clearly
> signaled that not all contributions are welcome.

It may very well end up that the sole difference between the WHATWG 
document and the W3C document is that the the WHATWG document states 
that summary attribute is conformant but obsolete, and the W3C document 
states that the summary attribute is conformant but not (yet) obsolete.

But the only way that will happen is if somebody goes into notepad, or 
follows Manu's process, or explains the use case, or finds some other 
means to cause a working draft to appear with these changes.

> JF
> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#first-wd
>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0627.html

- Sam Ruby

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0633.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0785.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0745.html
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 20:16:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:48 UTC