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

Re: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 02:40:03 +0200
Message-ID: <4A723D63.2090002@malform.no>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Sam Ruby On 09-07-31 00.49:

> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Sam Ruby On 09-07-30 21.27:
>>> Ben Adida wrote:

>>>> "For better or worse, the HTML WG is operating under a CTR process."
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0063.html
>>> I mispoke.
>> When? I think you were just as clear in May that we work under CTR, as 
>> you are clear today that we are not.

> [...]  I initially did that in a clumsy way (which Ben has 
> pointed out), but within a few days I attempted to straighten it out.  See:
> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/05/12/Microdata#c1242233866
> I apologize for the confusion.

Ok. Though I may still be confused ...


[... snip ... ]

> That being said, I reject any notion that any failure of people outside 
> of the WHATWG to produce a coherent proposal is somehow a failure of the 
> WHATWG in general or Ian in particular.  In particular, if Mike's draft 
> and Manu's draft are not yet ready, it is not somehow because they are 
> either more (or less) equal that Ian's, and certainly is not a reason to 
> block forward progress of Ian's draft.

Ian's draft has some entirely white spots as well - it is not 
ready. What you say about "failure" is convoluted - I don't get it 
(but may be that's ok ...)

> I[f] any member of the working group believe that now is the time to 
> "switch branches", then please propose exactly that.

_Add_ branches was my subject.


> In particular, I will draw your attention to:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0909.html

> "we welcome Ian Hickson and Dave Hyatt as editors (while remaining open 
> to the possibility of other editors in the future)."
> I have, and do, encourage people to work with these editors.  I have, 
> and do, encourage people who have found that approach to be a dead end 
> to not give up and actually produce concrete spec text.  In the long 
> run, it is my hope that what the W3C will publish will constitute 
> leadership that people will willingly follow.
> In at least two cases (declaring what Google, Yahoo!, CC and others are 
> doing with RDFa as non-conforming, and declaring what JAWS and other 
> tools support with the summary attribute as obsolete) I see areas where 
> I believe that intelligent people can reasonably disagree.  I will 
> further note that in both cases, there is no disagreement over what the 
> browser (and in particular, parser) behavior is or should be, what is in 
> dispute is author conformance requirements.

This seems like an adequate description of the problem with the 
<?ProcessingInstruction > syntax, as well.

However, the problem with @summary is that it creates a dispute 
over its usefulness - who should on listen to? HTML 5 or some 
other authority? In the draft, @summary has no role to play.

> But I digress.  I have every respect for Mike and Manu.  Both have 
> produced concrete proposals.  However, neither proposal has been 
> submitted for consideration by the working group.  I do not see that as 
> an optional step that can be sidestepped.

But we could show us, as WG, so interested in their drafts, that 
we ask how long time they would need to make them _ready enough_ 
for publication. Or even express that they are ready enough. I 
think Manu's draft is. In fact, it is shaped as addition to Ian's 

> Meanwhile, the Working Group is within its rights to decline to approve 
> the publication of a working draft that contains micro-data, or to 
> insist that RDFa be included or that micro-data (or the recent change to 
> summary) be explicitly marked.
> However, absolutely nobody has step forwarded and requested that any of 
> these be done.

Then let me step forward and request that Anne's _Differences_ 
document not being published, before it is adequately updated 
w.r.t. to what it currently labels "esoteric SGML" features. I 
have just outlined to Anne what he should do - I hope that will be 
enough [1]. (I consider this a modest request as it is only about 
making visible what is already in Ian's draft.)

> Instead, individuals use rhetoric like "lottery".  That I have little 
> tolerance for.

About '"lottery"' - I put it in in quotes to milden the tone.  I 
should have said "all these drafts" instead. ;-)

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/4A7221D9.9070700@malform.no
leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 00:40:50 UTC

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