- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 22:53:14 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Jul 8, 2011, at 21:56 , Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Robin Berjon wrote: >> >> Obviously we should coordinate, but coordination is time-consuming. > > Coordinating exceptions codes is just a matter of checking a wiki page. > It's hardly time-consuming. It only takes one person to forget to screw things up. And screw up we have. If there were a technical advantage to codes I might be receptive to your arguments, but there isn't. We can make everything both consistent and more usable with names. http://berjon.com/blog/2011/06/numerical-constants-must-die.html >> We shouldn't set ourselves up in such a way that we need to coordinate >> over every last detail ˜ some things should be such that they just work, >> without requiring WebApps, HTML, DAP, Web Notifications, CSS, Web >> Performance, WHAT, MAWG, RDF WebApps, SVG, Geolocation, and several I'm >> forgetting about to all talk together. > > A huge part of the problem here is we have too many groups in the first > place. I heartily agree, I think we'd be better off with a monster Web APIs group (and companies that want APIs fenced off to smaller groups over IP concerns can bite my shiny WebIDL). But every time groups with a large number of deliverables like DAP or WebApps get rechartered, we get feedback, usually from Big Web, that they have too many deliverables so I'm not sure how to address this. Back when XML was all the rage, and there were many groups using or developing around it, there was the XML Plenary that was supposed to be the channel for everyone to talk together. I don't think it worked all that well though. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 20:53:42 UTC