Re: ISSUE 86 and removing atom transform section - focusing

Maciej Stachowiak, Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:50:48 -0700:
> On Apr 16, 2010, at 2:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

>> I object to summarily removing it.  If it does become an LC blocker,
>> I'd support removing it; it'll remain the WHATWG version of the spec
>> in any case.  I believe the issues with the algorithm are minor and
>> can be resolved quickly, though.
> 
> All right, let's see if we can come up with an algorithm change that 
> no one objects to, otherwise this issue may end up going to a poll 
> and written decision.

If the attitude is that "I may remove it if it becomes a blocker", then 
some may speculate and not be serious about working on a solution. And 
I think the threat/promise to place it in another spec if doesn't get 
into HTML5, has the same effect. Before we come thus far, however, we 
have wasted this group's resources on discussing something that only a 
section of the group wanted.

There is no doubt that Shelley wants the Atom section removed. However, 
Shelley's *suggestion* was that we should to decide whether to keep the 
Atom section, before discussing it more.

If we take her challenge seriously, and decide which way to follow, 
then, if we decide that we disagree with the solution that she (and 
others) prefer, then the alternative is not to wait and see if it 
becomes a LC blocker, but to solve all remaining issues, including 
those that we have only scratched the surface of.

Hence, deciding first, before discussing more, seems like the right 
thing. If we, through a poll or otherwise, can decide *now* whether to 
go on with the Atom section, then we will be better off than if half of 
the constituency work for a solution - which ends up with a poll. To 
put it another way: It is better to have a poll about whether we agree 
that we should work more on it - or put it aside, than to have a poll 
about an concrete solution. We might, anyhow, end up with a poll about 
a concrete solution. However, it seems to me that this is less likely 
to happen if the group has made a decision to work on the problem.

My own attitude is very much in line with my perception of your 
previous reply: There seems to be some progress, bug "we currently have 
no implementation experience with this feature, and it seems like the 
details are tricky enough that we won't know the right answers until we 
have some".
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 23:00:17 UTC