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

Re: regrets, voting

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:41:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4A7194EF.8050707@intertwingly.net>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Larry Masinter wrote:
> I think my concerns and the nature of my objection to
> publication of a new working draft of the current 
> variation have been misrepresented, and I would
> ask that if there is going be a discussion it be
> scheduled for next week when I can defend myself.

Please be specific.  Who (specifically) is misrepresenting what?

There doesn't need to be any discussion on the phone of your objection. 
  Discussion on the mailing list is more than sufficient.

"I'd be happy to reconsider my objection if you could actually please 
respond to the concerns I raised about public misunderstanding of HTML 
status" [1]

I fail to find "public misunderstanding" in your previous emails.

The closest I can find is "the industry and the public are already 
confused enough about the state of the activities of the W3C HTML 
working group and the process we are embarking on." [2]

Who (by name) is confused about what?

This page: <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/> lists all of the Public Working 
drafts.  It also lists a decision history.  It does not list documents 
that we haven't decided to publish.  It doesn't preclude us from 
publishing more documents.  We may never publish such documents.

Manu, for example, has been very clear that he doesn't want his efforts 
to be considered as a fork.  "Just to be clear, this is not a fork of 
the HTML5 specification"[3].  My understanding is that his text is not 
ready for a July public Working Draft.  I believe that he would be 
delighted if some future refinement of this text were to go into an 
October public Working Draft, and if by that time there only one common 
Working Draft that the Working Group was working on.

"My objection would be satisfied if we also simultaneously published
Mike Smith's document and/or Manu's fork as First Public Working
Drafts along with a clear public explanation of the process we
are now engaging." [2]

How exactly would the public be served by publishing documents that 
aren't ready to be published as Working Drafts of this working group, 
and might very well never be ready to be published as such?  I very much 
believe that such a course of action would tend to create public 
misunderstanding and confusion.

At the present time, we are expected to follow the process and meet the 
heartbeat requirement.  Your vague and unsubstantiated assertions about 
deception and questioning of the validity of the this W3C process 
requirement are not helpful.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jul/0177.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0824.html
[3] http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/07/13/html5rdfa/2/
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 12:42:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:51 UTC