Re: ISSUE-66 Change Proposal: be more explicit about potential repair techniques

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Ian Hickson <> wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Shelley Powers wrote:
> >
> > Which do you want, Ian?
> What I want is, and always has been, completely irrelevant to my work on
> HTML5. In editing the spec I base my decisions on researched data and
> presented arguments, and not on anyone's opinions. In presenting change
> proposals for the working group or chairs to make decisions, I similarly
> expect opinions to not be in any way relevant and for decisions to be made
> purely on the basis of rational examination of options. For such an
> examination to be done effectively, all plausible options must be
> considered. Just as when I edit the spec I consider a wide variety of
> options, I feel that it is in the interests of the specification for the
> working group or chairs to consider a variety of plausible options.
> The goal, for me, is not, and never has been, to get a spec that reflects
> what I want, or what anyone else wants, or what a majority wants. My goal,
> and hopefully the goal of everyone else, is to get the best technical
> document we can get to best further the Web as a whole.
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL

Let me rephrase my initial question:

Which of the two proposals, keep the text exactly the way it is, or update
the text to reference specific image recognition technologies, do you feel
is the superior option based on whatever factor you used to form your
initial effort, and subsequent counter proposals?

In other words: which do you want, Ian?


Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:49:36 UTC