- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:45:59 -0400
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > Hi Sam, > > On Aug 16, 2009, at 7:51 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> Item #3 begs the question as to whether or not the current proposal in >> Ian's Editor's Draft is the result of consensus. It also presumes >> that invalidating one spec by another is not best practice, something >> that the current HTML5 draft does in a number of occasions. >> >> And the suggestions above (and by that, I mean the whole list: items 1 >> through 5) would seem like a more credible proposal if you could point >> to a consolidated place where the current differences between the CG >> Consensus Resolution and the HTML Working Draft have followed the >> above procedure. >> >> Steven Faulkner posted a resolution. I will note the following >> responses: >> >> 1) Ian Hickson[1][2]: "I don't understand" >> 2) Maciej Stachowiak [3][4][5]: "The material differences ... are" >> 3) Henri Sivonen [6]: "the following procedure should be followed" >> >> Between the three of you, nobody has provided any feedback on the >> resolution itself. Collectively, you are suggesting a burden of proof >> that you are not ready, willing, and able to meet yourselves[7][8]. > > I'd like to give my feedback in the form of recommending changes to the > current HTML5 draft to be more in line with this proposal. Cool. > To do that, I need to first understand clearly what the Resolutions > document is asking for. Understood. > And I want to help the supporters of this > document understand which aspects are already satisfied by the HTML5 > draft. Cool. > I believe I have demonstrated a capacity to expand understanding > among people who disagree, given sufficient discussion. Unquestionably. > I don't see how trying to better understand the document constitutes an > unreasonable burden of proof. No, but asking for people to justify[1] changes to a spec that has not yet been determined to represent consensus does. > Nor do I see how it will help us achieve > consensus for you to interfere with the process of mutual understanding. I don't see how asking people to provide the feedback requested is "interfering". And at this time, I would like to thank Henri for actually doing so[2]. > Would it be better if I just decided for myself what the document means, > without asking for confirmation or clarification? No. > Regards, > Maciej [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0828.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0834.html
Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 23:46:51 UTC