Re: minutes: HTML WG Weekly 21 May 2009 [draft]

I read these minutes and I was unable to discern a decision among the  
options I proposed:

1) Mark up examples more clearly as such in the Design Principles  
document.
2) Delete all examples from the Design Principles document.
3) Something else if neither of these options is acceptable.

I will do #1 unless I hear otherwise in the next few days.

On May 21, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

>
> Maciej's suggestion on DP consensus
>
>   SR: LC made some comments on the maing list
>   ... does this need to be discussed?
>
>   [silence]
>
>   LM: I have some comments...
>   ... The question is not so much whether the DP document is
>   self-reasonable, but whether or not it has in fact been used
>   appropriately in the document
>   ... The DP document is ambigious
>   ... What the document says about [Paving the Cowpaths] is that we
>   should consider widespread authoring practice rather than inventing
>   something totally new
>
>   <DanC> contra-positive
>
>   LM: It has been used in the contra-positive
>
>   <masinter> if A then B turns into if not A than not B
>
>   LM: e.g. <head profile>
>
>   [a side discussion between masinter and dsinger is unfortuantely not
>   minuted]
>
>   LM: which things are considered widespread and which things aren't;
>   it seems like this has been applied inconsistently
>
>   <dsinger> i.e. if something has been previously specified, but
>   failed to make a cowpath, then it should be de-considered
>
>   AvK: what makes you say that?
>
>   <dsinger> the above is NOT a stated principle but it seems to be
>   used as such
>
>   LM: I could come up with some examples, but there were some
>   discussions that I would have to do some research on
>   ... to give you an indication of what I think the issues are
>   ... that wording of the DP was changed during the discussion of the
>   DP itself
>
>   <Laura> The principles are open to various interpretations. In
>   practical use, no real consensus exists on what they mean.
>
>   LM: existing practice was used as a benchmark against wich
>   contervailing proposals didn't have any use against existing
>   practice
>
>   <Laura> Group members have fundamental differences with them.
>
>   LM: my question is that the document itself may be reasonable but
>   the practice in which the document has been used may not which is
>   the nature of my concern
>
>   AvK: that sounded really vague and incoherent and my scribing might
>   have reflected that for which I apoligize
>
>   <Laura> There has been no meeting of the minds on the content of the
>   design principles.
>
>   LM: my question was whether publishing the document today would
>   actually describe the practices we use today
>
>   <dsinger> why does the document need to be published or gain any
>   more status? it's a guideline to help move the group along, isn't
>   it, and hence internal?
>
>   AvK: to answer dsinger's question it has been published at some
>   point so it's not internal
>
>   SR: it was on the agenda because Maciej wrote an email to address an
>   issue and LC had concerns
>   ... I'm happy to move it forward or leave it as is
>
>   <Laura> If we are not going to have another poll to find out if we
>   have real consensus of the content of the principles document, I
>   propose that the entire document be obsoleted.
>
>   LM: I'm ok with leaving it as historical anecdote
>
>   DS: I think it helps as a general document documenting the way we
>   think
>   ... I don't think it's useful as rulebook
>
>   AvK: I agree with DS and would be happy to leave it as is
>
>   DS: I'll ping Maciej
>
>   SR: great
>
>   <Laura> If it is decided to publish the document as a note anyway, I
>   propose that at a minimum, a disclaimer is attached saying:
>
>   DougS: I think it is worth noting that when we first discussed these
>   TimBL chimed on to say they are not useful as rule but more as
>   describing how people arrived somewhere. they are mostly used as a
>   rhetorical tool, in practice
>
>   <Laura> "Publication of this document does not constitute
>   endorsement. There is no working group consensus on the content of
>   these principles but it was decided that further effort to refine
>   them and gain consensus was not a productive use of time.”
>
>   [For the minutes: DS might refer to both DaveS and DougS before I
>   started using DougS. Sorry!]
>
>   <masinter> i would question whether they reflect actually how
>   decisions were made
>

Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 08:16:23 UTC