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

Re: Request for editing guidance

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:25:31 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTim_-i2yZoKVUBUCHQ4Yqhtu5CzB5Gv_Axo78JFV@mail.gmail.com>
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.



Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 02:26:24 UTC

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