W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Request for editing guidance

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:28:24 -0500
Message-ID: <4C0FF968.5030501@burningbird.net>
To: public-html@w3.org
> On 06/08/2010 10:21 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> >
> > [I originally sent this request to the chairs privately, but in the
> > interests of transparency I'm reposting it more or less unchanged to the
> > public-html list.]
> I'll confirm that we had a private conversation, and that what is posted
> below is substantially the same content as the private conversation.
> I tried (unsuccessfully) to get Ian to actually respond to the decisions
> that were posted, but failing to do so and seeing commit 5001 come into
> my email, I started focusing on that.
> Seeing the WG on the whole repeating much of this (and by that I mean
> reacting to what they imagine might have been the reason as opposed to
> what actually was said), I will merely request that people try actually
> respond to the actual decision, filing bug reports on the process and/or
> escallating as they see fit.

Curious: as a non-member, can I file decision process bugs?

> [snip]
> > Other concrete examples:
> >
> > Why is ping="" out but hidden="" in?
> I encourage people to read and respond to the following email from March:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0132.html

The proposed removal of hidden is still an open item, awaiting the 
co-chairs response.

It did have a counter-proposal, and there were objections to removing 
it. That's one major difference between it an ping.

> > Why is microdata in its own draft but class="" not?
> I encourage people to read and respond to the following email from 
> January:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/att-0218/issue-76-decision.html
> For the tl;dr crowd, all you need to read is the final paragraph.  I
> encourage people to weigh for themselves how the factors mentioned in
> that paragraph apply to microdata and the class attribute.
Well, for one, I think we can safely say that class has enjoyed 
tremendous market success, is extremely mature (by nature of it being 
used _everywhere_), and is imminently reusable.

> > Why is postMessage() split out but showModalDialeg() not?
> > Why is the 2D context interface out but ApplicationCache not?
> I honestly can't answer that question.  No Work Group decision was made
> in either case.  People who are wondering this will need to ask the
> person who made that decision.  I encourage people to read and respond
> to the following email from Ian from January:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0320.html
There was an issue about splitting out browser context, which would 
include ApplicationCache. I had to let that one go, and did so 
reluctantly. I believe that this would could be a very successful 
split-out, and would actually be a net positive for everyone.

But the amount of work was intimidating. Let's say I would have been 
comfortable doing the work directly in the spec, but not trying to copy 
what amounts to a moving target, and doing the work with no guarantee 
that it would have a net positive effect. I also believe it needed input 
from browser implementors, because it amounts to the browser company 
business model.

However, if the HTML5 editor is willing, though I'm not part of the 
group, I would contribute editing time to help split out the browser 
context, including ApplicationCache. Then both would be split out and 
there would be one less item causing the editor confusion.

> - Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2010 20:29:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:20 UTC