W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Deciding Exceptions (ISSUE-23, ISSUE-24, ISSUE-25, ISSUE-31, ISSUE-34, ISSUE-49)

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:51:21 -0800
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C74AC6B3-498C-4819-93DD-869225743415@gbiv.com>
To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
On Feb 9, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Jonathan Mayer wrote:

> It seems more than a tad late to announce that implementers trump non-implementers in the group.

I am not "announcing" anything that isn't already inherent in the
W3C process.  The goal of the process is to come to consensus on
an agreed standard for how W3C members should implement.  The result
is a Recommendation on how to implement.  The burden is entirely
carried by the implementers to do so.  It is a waste of everyone's
time for the W3C to recommend what the implementers have stated they
will not implement.  Ultimately, it is assumed (though not always
the case) that the chairs will take that into account when evaluating
objections when it is necessary to resolve an impasse, since otherwise
the implementers will simply ignore what is produced by the WG.

OTOH, regulations do trump standards and are sometimes the basis of a
strong objection when they are accurately and objectively described.
Likewise, identifiable security vulnerabilities or privacy disclosures
are often considered the basis of strong objections (by all parties).

Opinions are not in themselves strong objections, no matter how
strongly they are felt or how frequently they are voiced.  The
reason for that should be obvious.  It is hoped that everyone
engaged in this process understands the need for consensus and
is therefore willing to consider alternatives when an apparent
impasse is reached.

....Roy
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 23:51:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:45 UTC