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

Re: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:44:25 -0700
Message-ID: <4A71CDE9.7040308@adida.net>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> I'm concerned whenever I see a group of people voting as a block, be it
> a group of people that work for a single vendor, are in the same group
> or task force.

This is dangerous territory. I represent Creative Commons, which pays
W3C dues. As of a few days ago, I'm a member of the HTML WG (after
having been encouraged to join by you). How does anyone get to say that
my vote doesn't count? Who gets to decide who votes as a block? Does the
WHATWG vote as a block? Probably, and probably with a lot more sway than
any other group.

Manu and I are not employed by the same organization. If he and I don't
get independent votes, then by that same reasoning, all WHATWG folks
within the HTML WG should get one vote.

But let's be a little bit more specific: it was clearly stated that the
HTML WG functions on a Commit-Then-Review process. Certainly, that's how
proposals such as micro-data appeared: Ian came up with it on his own,
and added it to the spec. Since then, he's received support for his
proposal, but that was *after* it was published on blogs and tweets that
micro-data was a new addition to the HTML5 spec.

Other proposals should get exactly the same treatment.

Of course, eventually, some protocol will need to be followed to
determine the final HTML5. But, in the meantime, different rules cannot
apply to different proposals.

Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 16:45:15 UTC

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