Re: Format of disposition of comments (Was: [XBL] Address Extensibility in XBL 2.0)

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Dean Jackson wrote:
> >
> > [1] See, e.g. SVG 1.2's disposition of comments, where the "Director's 
> > Responses" were actually written by the same person who chaired the 
> > group in question, and which was never even looked at by the Director 
> > before the specification went to CR.
> 
> That's an unusual interpretation of existential/universal qualification: 
> you're claiming that all humans are male because you saw one human in 
> the mirror this morning. I expect more valid logic than that from you in 
> arguments :)

I'm saying that since there is precedent to skipping this part of the 
process, and that since nothing useful was done about it, I feel 
completely justified in ignoring the process myself.


> Regardless, two wrongs don't make a better spec.

Why should I bother following the process with specifications I believe 
are perfectly fine, when specifications that I believe are actively 
damaging the Web are exempt from it? As far as I can tell, the XBL2 
specification has more to fear from a transition call where the objections 
are taken into account than a transition call where, like with SVG, the 
editor gets to write the resolutions. Wouldn't it make sense to make the 
disposition of comments as unusable as possible, thus discouraging the 
proper following of process?


> Steve Bratt requests that the disposition of comments are an HTML file 
> with at least the following for each comment:

I request that the SVG specification be sent back to Working Draft and 
then follow proper process. Until that happens, I've every intention of 
ignoring the process just like the W3C team and management.


In any case:

> - whether the comment was accepted or rejected clearly marked

Already done.

> - a link to the official Working Group response(s)

Already done.

> - a link to the acknowledgment of that response from the committer, if it
> exists

Already done.

> - if rejected, a justification for why and links to relevant discussion

Already done.

> - whether the comment has a formal objection against it

Already done.


> Converting your existing disposition into something that meets the 
> requirements above appears as if it would be easy to automate.

It already meets the criteria you just gave.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Monday, 30 October 2006 19:26:13 UTC