- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:34:31 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 04:21:35 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > I'm having trouble consistently applying the reasoning that is cited as > supporting the various working group decisions. How about applying the process "implement decisions of the working group" on top of the process you use for adding things to and removing things from the spec as you see fit? > So that we can keep the specification coherent, I feel it is important > that decisions be applied consistently. For example, if we removed all > the words with the letter "z" in one section, on the basis that the > letter "z" is bad, then it would be inconsistent to not apply that rule > to the rest of the spec, removing all the words with the letter "z". This would make sense if everything were done for exactly one reason. But that simply isn't the case, unless you accept "Ian decided this was best" as the definitive rationale for everything. While I have a great deal of respect for your understanding of the Web, and your hard work and good intentions, I don't consider that the best decision process for HTML 5. Many decisions have some political aspects, some technical aspects, are some part based on "facts on the ground" which are being created and re-created by various implementations, some part based on what we *believe* authors and implementors will think makes sense, or what they will do more or less naturally, and often some part completely arbitrary decision about what colour the bike shed should be. Pretending that there is some completely consistent mechanical approach to deciding what is in and out denigrates the role played by the participants in the various discussions, and even more so your central role in so many of the decisions, to the level of brainless automata, and would be misleading to the point of dishonesty. One reason for working within the W3C is that we (Opera) believe that overall the collective wisdom of W3C is superior to your individual ability to judge what the future of the Web should be. This is not to say that W3C always gets it right - often it doesn't. The same applies to WHAT-WG, to Ian and me and various other individuals. (See the word "overall" in the first sentence of this paragraph.) [... various over-simplified examples snipped ...] > I feel like the W3C version of the HTML draft is turning into a block of > Emmentaler. /me wonders what on earth that means, but assumes it is meant to suggest something vaguely unsatisfactory. > This opinion is especially reinforced by the way people keep > e-mailing me to ask me why this or that section has been removed, to > which I've ended up just answering "I don't know, but if you use the > WHATWG version of the spec you won't have to worry about that". You could try "I am the editor who puts the text together for a large group of people who are trying to agree on a standard. Sometimes I don't understand their decision, but here is a pointer to the discussion so you can see if you are cleverer than me and can interpret it". You could try "the working group is stupid, but I agreed to work with them anyway". Or "a standard works best when it is based on a consensus that has a realistic chance of being adopted by a diverse community with competing interests, so HTML 5 is developed using a consensus-based process". Or "W3C process document says the document reflects what the WG decides". There are a lot of ways to explain things - how far you politicise the answer and in what direction is up to you, of course. Pointing to a different document that does not reflect what W3C apparently intends to publish as HTML 5 is not helpful to building a standard. It increases fragmentation, uncertainty over the future, and comes across as political game-playing rather than an honest attempt to help improve the standards the web is based on, and adherence to those standards. The creation of WHATWG was an overtly political act. The value (IMHO) of its continued existence lies in the fact that a number of fairly like- minded and intelligent individuals seem to feel more comfortable with its free-wheeling approach than with the process that makes many organisations trust W3C, not in WHATWGs ability to produce FUD and fragment emerging standards. There is sufficient confusion over what HTML5 is already. > Since my name is the name on the draft, people assume I understand the > decisions that went into the draft. If my name is to continue being on > the draft, if I'm to continue editing the spec, then I need to > understand these decisions. Why? You are the editor, not the sole author of the spec - that role is held by the Working Group, whose names are also clearly associated with the spec. Your role is more important than almost anyone other individual's since you put together the words that implement the decisions (and because of your particular approach to editing you also make at least the first version of most decisions), but your role is a servant of the group, and not vice versa. > So again I ask: > > Could you please write a coherent statement of editing guidance that I > can consistently apply to the spec to make it consistent with the > working group decisions throughout? I suggest: "Where the working group disagrees with the editor, implement the working group's decisions. Do not attempt to undercut those decisions by further editorial shenanigans". A person of your evident intellect and industry should find that simple enough to carry out. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2010 11:35:11 UTC