W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Statement why the Polyglot doc should be informative

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 10:07:17 -0500
Message-ID: <509D1C25.1070809@intertwingly.net>
To: public-html@w3.org
On 11/09/2012 09:22 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
> <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
>> Feel free to explain why that is a sign of "confusion".
> I’m not sure what I can explain if you don’t recognize the claim that
> Polyglot gives you better structure as being obviously bogus.

I will take this opportunity to once again discourage you from using 
clearly pejorative terms like "obviously bogus".

While I do believe that that statement is overreaching, I believe that 
it does so in a manner that is easily correctable.

But more to the point: I don't think that discrediting Leif en passant 
is a productive way to conduct a constructive conversation on the topic.

You previously complimented me and others on attempting to restore a 
more productive environment here.  I encourage you to lead by example.

>> Is there a concrete reason to mention libxml2?
> If you don’t mention which particular software hoops are for, people
> will continue jumping through the hoops long after it’s no longer
> relevant. Consider the requirement of Appendix C to have a space
> before />, which was motivated by Netscape 3 or IE 3. (I don’t even
> remember which at this point!)

I will once again draw the parallel to the HTML5 specification which 
does not document which of the particular quirks of the existing parsing 
algorithm were motivated by which browsers.

> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> Lacking such bug reports
> I had the text of the first message to this thread open in a Bugzilla
> textarea when I specifically asked Paul if the requirement to have a
> bug report on file is waived in this case. I didn’t file a bug,
> because Paul indicated that voice communication at the meeting plus
> sending the email would suffice to invoke the relevant part of the
> Decision Process in this case.

Creative snipping there.  Whatever might have been said or what you 
might have thought you heard, I will once again state that the process 
is quite clear that the next step after the editors initial decision is 
indeed a bug report:


- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 9 November 2012 15:07:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:58 UTC