W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > August 2006

RE: Script Element Processing (Was: [SVGMobile12] Question on details of when <script> elements execute)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:43:09 +0000 (UTC)
To: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0608150122460.5340@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Doug Schepers wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> | 
> | I am skipping your technical questions because in my opinion you are 
> | acting in bad faith, and I am no longer interested in taking 
> | part in the reviewing of SVG 1.2. (Three examples of this bad  
> | faith are that you flat out dismissed some of my comments, you
> | didn't represent my comments fairly in your disposition of 
> | comments, and you didn't highlight any of the issues that I 
> | strongly disagreed with in your report to the director.)
> Just to be clear, the antecedent of "you" in your statement is, in fact, 
> not me.

You're a member of the working group. The working group is collectively 
responsible for this. That includes you.

> I have gone out of my way to try to answer your concerns, to the point 
> of seeking you out on IRC and answering your emails with great detail

Yet you still agreed to have SVG 1.2 go to CR, you still didn't raise an 
objection when the disposition of comments was written, etc.

> a practice you have not reciprocated.

The sheer amount of time I've spent trying to review SVG Tiny 1.2, and the 
huge number of comments I've sent on it trying to make it better, should 
be an adequate response to this.

> I am an individual working with the SVG WG on behalf of a company, and 
> in the interests of authors.  To the best of my knowledge, I have never 
> done any of the things you listed above.  It might be useful for you to 
> see the distinctions between a Working Group and its constituency.

The Working Group _is_ its constituency. Don't hide behind the concept of 
collective responsibility to disclaim your own involvement. It's as much 
your fault as any other member of the working group. Your name is in the 
list of the editors of the spec. That makes it your problem.

Come on Doug. Look at the replies you sent me.

Here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Jul/0111
My comment was specific, yet you replied asking what I meant.

Here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Jun/0112
My comment was asking for a particular example to be specified, along with 
related behaviour, yet you replied with a huge four paragraph e-mail 
hand-waving around the issue asking for me to "define" my request.

Here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Jun/0095
You said that you had fixed the issue and that I'd be able to comment on 
the next draft, but then you released a CR less than the minimum comment 
period after that draft was published.

Here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006May/0086
You said that you had fixed the issue but wouldn't tell me what the 
changes were. You didn't publish the changes for more than two months, but 
requested that I send my feedback in two weeks.

Here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Feb/0074
I gave you some examples. You agreed that the examples were very good, and 
then promptly dismissed the examples, asking if they were even relevant, 
despite the fact that (a) the specs in question answered your question, 
and (b) the examples weren't required to make my initial issue valid.

The list goes on (I was just looking at your e-mail to me in the 
archives, going backwards from the last thread).

Maybe I'd be less disinterested in SVG at this point if I didn't feel like 
you (personally as well as the entire working group) were trying to avoid 
actually addressing my comments all the time, instead of trying to write a 
decent, high quality, interoperably implementable specification.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 01:43:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:58 UTC