Re: Proposal to publish HTML5 and vocab specs

Sam Ruby wrote:
> Shelley Powers wrote:
>>> My advice to everybody is spend more time pushing *for* features and 
>>> aspects
>>> that you like, and only spend time pushing *against* features or aspects
>>> that you can't live with.
>> And that's what we're doing. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.
> Shelley, I agree that's what you are doing, and I appreciate it.
> As to why I might think others may not be doing likewise, I submit:

I think pushing against stuff that is controversial will actually 
improve what's left in. We are currently spending lot of time discussing 
these things, and this will not stop until we decide one way or the other.

> To all: if there are features that need to be split out, but can 
> continue as independent specs, we need change proposals for such.  And 
> if the rationale for such split is stronger than the rationale for 
> keeping it in, then a split will be what we will do.
> I'm aware of such a change proposal for Microdata.  I'm aware of work 
> being done to split out canvas, and this needs a consolidated set of 
> rationale, ideally in the form of a change proposal.
> Are there other sections that need to be removed or split out?  If so, 
> now would be an ideal time to bring them forward, ideally first as bugs, 
> and then as issues if the resolution is not satisfactory.  If not, why 
> are we having this discussion?

Looking at open and raised tracker issues (from my p.o.v.), a candidate 
for removal is hyperlink auditing. There may be more, but I confess that 
I've been reluctant in raising more issues until we have proof that we 
have a working group policy that actually helps making decisions (and 
yes, we may finally be getting there).

BR, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 15:42:05 UTC