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

Re: ISSUE-41: Decentralized-extensibility - Straw Poll for Objections

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:10:15 -0400
Message-ID: <4C9CA337.9090102@intertwingly.net>
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 09/24/2010 08:41 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Sam Ruby, Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:40:02 -0400:
>> On 09/24/2010 07:12 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>> Sam Ruby, Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:28:42 -0400:
>>>> 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 be withdrawn, proposals updated, and then reissued.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.
>>> "Unless those words appear in the document someplace"
>>> We are supposed to give technically related response, but you suggest I
>>> use space in the poll to object to a political matter.
>> You seem to be objecting to the change proposal.  There is a box for
>> such objections.  If this objection is relevant, it will be
>> considered.  In any case, I will strongly discourage this point being
>> discussed further on this list.
> So what did you mean by "Unless those words appear in the document
> someplace"? Empty words? I have documented hat it is in the document.
> Additionally, Julian has now documented those words appears in the
> HTML5 spec itself:
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10717
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10718

Excellent!  Bug reports are a good outcome.  I suggest you follow 
Julian's example.

>> Perhaps the following commit is the one you are looking for:
> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/004101.html
> Indeed. As Masata's messages shows,[*] the editor had a dialogue with
> himself.
> [*] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0275.html
>>>> We have current allowed for two weeks.  Can you state how much time
>>>> you feel would be necessary to study this proposal?
>>> Those two weeks are for the voters. I think the CP authors should get
>>> 3-4 weeks to see if they need to update their proposals. Thereafter,
>>> the poll can be restarted. I will also consider reactivating my own
>>> proposal.
>> I just want to be clear: you are asking for a delay because somebody
>> *might* want to create yet another proposal?
> It does not need to be created. It exists. It just needs to be updated.
> I will update my proposal. Perhaps Robert's proposers would like to
> update their proposal. And, without doubt, the co-chairs should now
> admit the zero-edit proposal again, unless it removes it controversial
> texts.

Correction: you withdrew your proposal, and nobody decided to pick it up:


As near as I can tell, what you are suggesting is that each and every 
time somebody updates a change proposal, a month should be added for 
people to update their change proposals -- including ones that were 
withdrawn -- and then... what?  Another month be added to allow changes 
in response to these changes, and the cycle repeats again.

This is not a path that will get us to Last Call on a predictable schedule.

I understand that you missed the original bug report, AND the change 
which added some advice on how to do experimental non-standard 
attributes, AND the change which tweaked the syntax, AND the fact that 
the original syntax went out in the previous heartbeat draft, AND the 
fact that the updated syntax was approved for the current heartbeat draft.

I also understand that you decided not to pursue your proposal and that 
nobody else saw a reason to support that proposal.  I have seen no 
arguments put forward to indicate that there are any changes which could 
be made to that proposal which would garner further support.  Without 
that crucial piece of information, I see it as highly unlikely that the 
chairs will grant additional delays.

And I will reiterate: I continue to see it as entirely proper and 
constructive for the draft to evolve towards a position which will 
attract greater consensus, and see no reason to exclude the proposal 
that contains the rationale for what currently exists in the document 
simply because this work was done.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 24 September 2010 13:10:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:05 UTC