Re: Change Proposals, objections, and the Decision Policy

On 16.06.2010 01:43, Adam Barth wrote:
> ...
> At this point, it appears that they way to influence the working group
> is to raise a snowstorm of objections and hope some of them stick.
> Just to pick the six highest numbered issues as examples:
> 1) ISSUE-101: "Spec reference for US-ASCII."  Does this matter at all?
>   I think everyone reading the spec knows what ASCII is.
 > ...

If it doesn't matter, why can't we point to something that indeed 
defines ASCII?

> ...
> 2) ISSUE-103: "XML escaping in iframe/@srcdoc."  This is the
> definition of an editorial issue.  Who cares how explicitly the spec
> says which characters need escaping.  If we micromanage the editorial
> process at this level, we'll be working on this spec for the next
> thousand years.
 > ...

I care, because the current text implies that HTML is super-easy, while 
XHTML is so hard that even the Working Group can't explain it.

> ...
> 4) ISSUE-107: "Politics in fallback example for plugin usage."  Again,
> a completely editorial issue.  Whoever raised this issue doesn't like
> some text in the spec that could be replaced with lorem ipsum and the
> spec would be the same.
 > ...

The normative part would be the same, but the spec in total wouldn't.

Again, if it's "not important" why is it ok that the editor fights hard 
for no change, and it's not ok for others to try to change that?

 > ...
> 6) ISSUE-110: "Change Control for text/html-sandboxed media type."
> This issue is entirely pedantic.  In some future world, there might be
> some confusion about who the controlling entities are for text/html
> and text/html-sandbox.
> ...

This issue *will* surface when we do the media type registration. 
Pretending it won't just delays a fix.

I agree that it's unfortunate that issues like these take so much time 
to resolve, but please don't blame it completely on those who happen to 
disagree with the current text.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2010 07:08:37 UTC