- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:23:16 -0400
Jim Ley wrote:
>> So really, what the public doesn't know is what the public doesn't
>>care enough to ask about. Does that make the process non-open?
>>Perhaps in the strictest sense, but then why should we care?
>
> Because the whole point of this is it's being done in the open, if
> it's not an open process, don't pretend that it is, and don't pretend
> that just keeping a latest draft available is open, it's not!
My point is that when whether or no something is "open" depends on
what dictionary definition you use, perhaps you should be making a
practical argument for openness rather than a literal one.
> If the WHAT-WG come out say - "not everything's public, it's not an
> open process, but we'll keep the latest draft public" then fine.
> They've not said that yet though.
Name one group who's going to say their process isn't "open" because
members can send each other personal emails without having them posted
for the entire world to see, or because they can't remember who they had
a conversation with about date pickers. You go on and on about how our
efforts will fail if this process isn't "open" in the way you define it,
but you seem to be the only one who has a problem with how open the
current system is.
> I still don't see the point (and xslt cab be disabled to you know...)
And that represents what portion of the Internet Explorer
installations? For that matter, why not worry about all the people using
IE4? The majority of people use IE6 out of the box. Why should we start
worrying about uncommon configurations where features are intentionally
disabled in a way that the average user doesn't even know how to do?
Received on Saturday, 10 July 2004 16:23:16 UTC