- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:28:42 -0400
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: "Michael Smith (tm)" <mike@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 09/23/2010 08:45 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > Sam Ruby, Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:49:29 -0400: >> On 09/23/2010 07:19 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >>> Sam Ruby, Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:12:51 -0400: >>>> The poll is available here, and it will run through Wednesday, >>>> October 7th(*): >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-41-objection-poll/ >>> >>> Co-Chairs and Mike, >>> >>> Reading the socalled "zero-edit" proposal ("heavy-edit" would have been >>> more accurate names), I discovered info that we have not had in time. >> >> The only relevant question at this point is whether the poll should >> be withdrawn, proposals updated, and then reissued. > > I suggest that it should be delayed, yes. > > .... >>> Firstly: The proposal referred to as 'zero-edit', consequently speaks >>> about Microddata as a "feature" (a feature of HTML), while whereas >>> HTML5+RDFa is presented as "applicable specification"extension. Draw >>> you own conclusions. Even if I would have agreed with that proposal, >>> those comments would hinder me from adding any support. >> >> *shrug* People sometimes believe strange things that are at odds >> with reality. Unless those words appear in the document someplace, I >> don't think that is relevant. > > It appears in the document many places: Feel free to object to it. > http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/thread.html > > That commit is about "vendor--". I complained that it is impossible to > find "_vendor-". (I had already found "vendor--".) I'm interested if > you find _vendor. I continue to see _vendor- on that page. $ curl -s http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/thread.html | grep _vendor- | wc -l 1 >>> Conclusions >>> >>> Irrational: >>> The so called zero change proposers have, in parallel with their work >>> on the so called zero change proposal, worked on an extension mechanism >>> for vendors! This, in my mind, undermines the very point that the zero >>> change proposers want to make. (They also claim it to be important that >>> extension happens within the standard process framework - however, the >>> way _vendor/vendor-- has gotten into the spec, doesn't actually make me >>> trust that view.) >> >> To the contrary, attempting to find something that addresses the very >> use cases that you were pursuing in an attempt to garner wider >> support is highly rational. > > To say that the zero-edit CP authors have worked on "vendor--feature", > is colorful language on my part. It is Ian who is the editor. > > The issue is that we have tried to cater for that problem. Wasting > resources on that issue, without being informed about a similar > parallel effort: Clearly the main issue that the supporters of ISSUE-41 > have wanted to support is _not_ vendor prefixes. (And btw, my own CP > placed vendor prefixes in no-namespace- so it was not far from the same > thing as _vendor-feature.) Can you explain how delaying would address this? >>> Uncollegial: >>> More seriously, the other Change Proposal authors (including myself) >>> have not been informed about this, and thus have been prevented from >>> responding - positively or negatively - to this vendor prefix feature. >>> E.g. the _vendor-feature solution has many likeness with my own change >>> proposal, since my entire proposal was based on prefixes beginning with >>> the underscore letter. I would have liked to know this as I worked and >>> thought about my own proposal. >> >> The question on the table is not whether this person or that group is >> or are bad people, the question on the table is which proposal will >> garner the least objections. > > And that is why polls should be arranged in a way which do not attract > attention to side issues. Lack of objections should come as result of > real lack of objections. Not because the process is so tiresome and > unpredictable that it isn't any inspiring to participate. > > There are two issues: information about _vendor/vendor--. The other > issue is time to study the zero-edit proposal. We have current allowed for two weeks. Can you state how much time you feel would be necessary to study this proposal? >>> Late: >>> The change proposals have existed for months. The zero-edit proposal >>> has existed for 4 days. [4] Had it been presented to the group in due >>> course, then probably much of this would have been solved in time. >> >> The length of time is irrelevant. > > Not to me as a Change Proposal author. It is highly relevant to know > what the other proposals are about and so. Can you state how much time you feel would be necessary to study this proposal? >> Please record any concrete >> objections you might have to one or both proposals as they exist now >> in the survey. >> >>> PS: I am really happy that Maciej suggest new bugs should go to this >>> list. That should have happened long ago. >> >> Agreed. > > Thus you admit that length of time is relevant. Because I suppose we > both want Maciej's proposal so that so that you can stay informed. I don't see how you come to that conclusion, but at the present time I believe that two weeks is enough to study both proposals, and I am curious how much time you feel you need. > Had I been aware of bug 9590, then I would also have been aware of > _vendor and vendor--. I have read Rob Ennals change proposal many > times. THat has helped me understand it. Likewise, I had read the > zero-edit proposal early enough, then a) I would have helped - or hurt > - my own CP, b) I would not have sent this letter to you today. - Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 24 September 2010 02:29:17 UTC