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

Re: Bug 7034

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:33:43 -0400
Message-ID: <4BA3EDB7.4090506@intertwingly.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/19/2010 04:43 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Mar 19, 2010, at 1:29 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>> Let's say Ian wanted to make a spec change to address the the bug. How
>> would he know whether a given change addresses it? Based on that title
>> alone, it seems impossible to tell if any particular resolution of the
>> bug is a FIXED or a WONTFIX. If the title were "All authoring
>> conformance requirements in the spec should be removed", then it would
>> be very clear whether a resolution counts as FIXED, but I believe that
>> is a solution you personally do not agree with, even though it was the
>> original intent of the bug. (My guess would be that a bug with that
>> title would result in a resolution of WONTFIX with a justification for
>> why there are authoring conformance criteria in general, rather than
>> detailed individual justification of every one.)
>
> By the way, here are some other specific issues potentially present in
> bug 7034 which, if they were themselves the title of a bug, would likely
> result in a clear resolution:
>
> "Presentational elements and attributes should all be made conforming"
> "& should be allowed to appear unescaped in attribute values"
>
> It seems clear to me that addressing these points is necessary to
> satisfy your request, and they seem extremely clear and reasonably
> focused. But based on what you have said in the bug so far, addressing
> these two points does not seem to be sufficient to satisfy you. So it
> would be useful to know what else is at issue.

[co-chair hat off]

My request is for rationale.  I assume there is a coherent strategy 
behind this, but I don't see it.  Each time I take a closer look, I find 
what appears to me to be glaring inconsistencies.

> Incidentally, I think I would personally agree with both of the two
> specific points above.

My request is for rationale.  If there is a good rationale for these 
points that fits with a larger strategy, then I would disagree with both 
of those specific points above.

What you are asking me to do to take guesses as to what the intent is 
for the authoring requirements, take pot shots at the spec without this 
necessary understanding, see what falls over when I do, and then repeat 
the process until either nothing is left standing or what is left 
standing does have consensus.

That does not seem like a sane alternative to me.

> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 19 March 2010 21:34:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC