- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:26:39 +0200
- To: Martijn <martijn.martijn@gmail.com>, "Doug Schepers" <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
- Cc: public-webapi <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:17:41 +0200, Martijn <martijn.martijn@gmail.com> wrote: > 2007/6/28, Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>: >> Decisions get made all the time without informing the public list. The >> decision to create this spec in the first place was not a public >> decision. Most of the wording and functionality of the spec was the >> work of a small group of people. Only when an issue is raised does the >> debate start. > > Ok, thanks so that means it is normal to not inform people about > decisions on the mailing list, right? No - although it happens. In this case, I didn't notice that the relevant message went to the member-only list (it should normally have gone to the public list) so didn't ask for it to be forwarded. And Lachy was brand new in the group at the time (April). > I'm still not really too fond with the way this was handled, but I was > under the impression that this was something that was voted upon. No. The working group doesn't generally work by vote. It aims to get consensus. Where there is a vote, it is a very fragile consensus, and people who weren't there to vote saying "hey, I have a real problem with this" can hold an issue open if they get some support. > Sorry guys, I owe you, Lachlan and Charles (and probably more people) > an apology... Not to me - I really should have made sure it was clear this issue was open. > Well, the only natural name for me is getElementsBySelector and from > what I read on irc from Lachlan, that is not going to happen, so there > is nothing for me to debate, is there? If you really can't live with the names, and will ignore the spec and implement something else, then there is something to debate. I understand Jean-Yves' position and am extremely grateful to him and Sun for making this compromise. I think they are probably the ones with the strongest "substantial" case against it. Given that so many organisations have accepted the names proposed, I am hopeful that for the first time we can actually get a consensus. There are no good processes for resolving naming issues. Hence the call for consensus - if we can get it, then I am prepared to accept whatever names the consensus resolves on as being good enough. I don't love the current names. There are real problems with getElementsBySelector, get, and the various other proposals too. Finding a perfect name is, in my opinion, not much more likely than serving roast unicorn when you come for dinner - certainly not enough more likely to justify the effort beyond an attempt to reach consensus on *something*... So, sorry for the real communication failure, and I hope that you understand the process that got us here and can live with the names... cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk chaals@opera.com Catch up: Speed Dial http://opera.com
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 08:26:57 UTC