[whatwg] some issues

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 05:03:28 -0400, Matthew Raymond
<mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 2) A spec that takes three times as long to submit gives people three
> times longer to argue about any one issue in the specification.

If consensus can't be reached, then there's good reason for more
discussion (or removal), that's how you get could specs.
 
>    Does a private email to Ian by one of the members saying "the latest
> draft looks fine" rise to the level of being a closed process? 

It's irrelevant to the process, the communication is defined only
through this mailing list, if a member wishes to express their support
it has to go through the list for Ian to take any notice (that's the
defined process, I've already said I think this is silly, but that's
what's there.)

> >>Secondly, why can't we just create a Web Forms 2.0
> >>Mobile Profile?
> >
> > Because most mobile browsers aren't upgradeable?
> 
>    Not sure what you mean.

The current proposals do not apply to XHTML Basic, therefore we cannot
serve our WF2 documents to XHTML Basic UA's. a Mobile Profile of WF2
won't change this for the legacy clients, as they cannot be upgraded.

> > The problem is perception, 3 browser vendors are absolutely
> > controlling the process, it doesn't appear open currently.
> 
>    First of all, there are only seven members. How many different
> browser vendors can they represent? 

I agree it's a disappointingly small number.

> > Competitive advantage by inventing new elements etc. is how the war
> > was fought 9 years ago, I think people are right to be suspicious.
> 
>    Suspicion and reason are not the same thing.

No, but you seem to be missing the whole thrust of mine, and C
Williams arguments, that perception is incredibly important, it's not
just the reality that matters.

> The Mozilla Foundation didn't exist. Safari didn't exist.

Not that I actually think it's relevant, but many of the individuals
in the WHAT WG were involved with browsers at the time. (which is good
of course, getting their expertise involved)
 
> It
> may simply be that discussion is not open to the public, but there's on
> official secrecy requirement.

http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/comm.html#Member-only

> Stop wasting our time.

As you keep noting, you don't have to read, or reply.

> 
>    I've seen your comments, and for those that were rejected (not all
> of them, BTW), I read a rational reason as to why they were rejected.
> For example, your concern about the copyright of the draft was addressed
> when Ian agreed to look into getting the draft put in public domain,

Something we surely takes a couple of emails to the Opera management,
and legal, hardly something that takes the 4 or so weeks since I've
asked, any progress Ian?

Jim

Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2004 04:51:59 UTC