- From: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:27:20 -0800
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Joćo Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com>, Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFD0FDD748.50E29DE6-ON8825726E.006A8F1B-8825726E.006ADFA4@us.ibm.com>
Ian, Editors are in charge of the words in a spec and simply make sure that the will of the WG is reflected in the spec. I don't understand where there is bad precedent in this. On the other hand, it would be very bad precedent if editors attempted to override the will of the WG to make specs reflect their own personal opinions. Jon Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> Sent by: To public-webapi-req Joćo Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com> uest@w3.org cc Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org> Subject 01/25/2007 11:18 Re: Selectors API naming AM On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Joćo Eiras wrote: > > > > Given that this discussion was done behind closed doors, and given > > that there is certainly not consensus on this (the first reaction I > > saw on IRC to this was "wow, those names suck!") > > I find these much better than all other propositions, and I'm not lazy > to type longer method names, if they're descriptive. So, it's a matter > of personal opinion that "names suck". My argument is not that the names suck. My argument is that there is not concensus, that the decision process was opaque and behind-closed-doors, and that having the working group override the editor on such a trivial issue as naming is a bad precedent for open Web spec development. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
- image/gif attachment: pic32179.gif
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2007 19:27:41 UTC