- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:25:31 -0700
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Tantek, > >> I'd like to see the group try adding a required subsection to the >> existing Rationale section of the Change Proposal Template that lists >> something like: >> >> " >> Design Principles... > > We would need to reach consensus on the design principles first. They > do not have consensus of the working group. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-html-design-principles-20071126/#sotd > http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/dprv/results Thanks for sending those over Laura. I read over all the results and especially read all the comments from the "* disagree" responses. By no means am I saying that the design principles are perfect. I think there's numerous ways they could be improved and in fact I agree with many (most) of the constructive suggestions for edits that you yourself recommended in the comments sections. There's enough good suggestions there that I think a good incremental update to the document is possible, even if it doesn't address all the comments/objections, and that would be a good step forward. Are the current editors (Maciej, Anne) still interested in actively maintaining/updating the document? It's about 2.5 years old and could use an update (not making a judgmental statement - I myself have a few drafts older than that that I'm working on updating.) I do think it is one of the more important documents produced by the HTML WG. However, for now, given both the strong plurality of consensus (though not unanimous) on the various principles, and that many of the objections contained very reasonable (and many small) edits to help the document move forward, I think the current document is a good baseline foundation to use for justifying Change Proposals. <aside>Note: I'm discounting a few responses which were either obstructionist in nature, or seemed to echo an "XHTML2-think" type mindset, as no amount of edits to the principles short of totally scrapping them will satisfy that crowd, nor should we bother to waste time doing so. IMHO Such strongly contrarian energies would be better spent resurrecting XHTML2 or making other alternative proposals, rather than attempting to roadblock HTML5.</aside> I assert that Change Proposals based on reasonably well (even if not fully) agreed design principles are a much better way forward, even as of *now*, for both dispute/issue resolution and for a technically stronger specification. On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com> wrote: > Tantek wrote: > >> I'd like to see us at least *try* to bring to light and emphasize >> design principles in Change Proposals before throwing in the towel > > Agreed. This is something I tried to do when I set out to write the > zero-edit change proposal to keep hidden="", which then got folded into > the "Retain several…" CP: > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/KeepNewElements#Rationale_for_hidden.3D.22.22 Yes, that's a good step towards exactly the kind of principle citing that I'm talking about. >> I'd like to see the group try adding a required subsection to the >> existing Rationale section of the Change Proposal Template that lists >> something like: […] > > Seems reasonable to me. I especially like the idea that CP authors > should identify general design principles which their CP's position > relies on, but that didn't make it into the design principles document > (Baby Steps comes to mind). Agreed with the Baby Steps philosophy. Thanks, Tantek -- http://tantek.com/
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 02:26:24 UTC