- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:45:59 +0000
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Cc: Jim Melton <jim.melton@oracle.com>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, chairs@w3.org, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
-- Marcos Caceres On Thursday, December 15, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > > > On 12/15/2011 5:08 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > I agree. My working assumption is that all specs have bugs, but newer > > versions fix old bugs but introduce new ones. Over time, updated specs > > may have less bugs and eventually stabilise. > > > > No, not foreseeable and avoidable ones. In many cases. Let's say that > specification S(V1) references Unicode(V1). Now unicode is updated. In many > cases it's crucial that users of S >not< start using that specification > with Unicode(V2) until the group responsible for S specifies a way of doing > so that's secure and interoperable. For that reason, it may be appropriate > for S(V1) to reference specifically Unicode(V1). > > I should say I'm also a bit concerned about the tone of this discussion. I > respect your opinion on these things, Marcos, and it's possible that in > some of the cases where we disagree experience may prove you right. > Nonetheless, the tone of this interaction seems to be that you are setting > out potentially controversial points of view (e.g. of course forward > references to specs cause bugs...stuff happens), and are essentially > setting them up as the default position for discussion. That's not my intention. I don't speak with authority, I'm only one individual and my opinions are just personal opinions - though yes, they are a little impassioned because I've been burnt a few times. Having said that, if I see something silly (e.g., locking XHTML to XML Ed. 4.), of course I'm going to call it out. > If you are serving > as de-fact editor for a redesign of W3C specification formats and > standards, then I think you should solicit opinions on questions like > biblio conventions in a more neutral way, and where possible, try to go > with the opinion that either commands consensus, or failing that, best > matches the full range of current practice. If you have suggestions, that's > great. Many of the decisions we've been discussing on this thread are > pretty subtle, involve difficult tradeoffs, and have been the subject of > long debate by some pretty experienced people for quite awhile. I'd prefer > we not come at them in a style of: "surely this is the answer, any > problems?" I'd much rather see a short list of options, with as clear a > listing as we can get of the pros and cons. That's fair. I'll try to adapt and be more constructive and neutral.
Received on Friday, 16 December 2011 21:47:10 UTC