- From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 12:40:22 -0700
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, public-html-request@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF6FBC3E26.207A603E-ON882572D0.006467AE-882572D0.006C1164@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Dan, Thanks for considering my point of view. I believe that considering the question somewhat differently is worthwhile and that I did provide a statement of what could change to assuage my objection to the first question. Indeed I think it would be very useful to test the waters of the "spirit of the charters" to see how much formal objection would result from the change I suggested, but I've seen enough willingness to collaborate in the past two days that it now seems an impasse is not the most likely outcome. ===================================================================================== Regarding question 1, what I requested is that the question be amended to ask: "Shall we adopt HTML5, WF2 and XForms as our bases for review?" That's it. The follow-on material is already clear enough that using these documents as *the* basis for review does not constitute endorsement of the entire feature set... The question as worded appears to cut out consideration of XForms from the review process. Since the authors of WF2 have already indicated that they considered XForms when creating WF2, this adjustment should not produce objections. The adjustment I am requesting also makes clear that considering documents as the basis for review really does not mean using them for review as opposed to using them as *the* starting documents. The latter approach creates the problem of preempting agreement on the architectural design requirements that led to the documents. In particular, XForms and WF2 optimize for different requirements, and coming to consensus on some of those requirements will potentially have significant effects on some of the technical approaches taken (i.e. the tag set that results). I intend to elaborate on at least one such pair of tehnical requirements in a response to another mail on this list, but I think that technical discussion only serves to reify the possibilities that I have claimed are being preempted by not including XForms in the list of documents to be used as the basis for review. ===================================================================================== Regarding question 3, I do not believe that I objected to Ian Hickson nor Dave Hyatt being editors of HTML5. First, despite my own mark of concurrence on question 2, observe that question 3 presupposes consensus on question 2. More importantly, the wording of the question implies that we are selecting *the* editors, as opposed to selecting editors. I believe that my objection reflects only a desire to reword the question so that a further editor of the forms component can be appointed at a later time without formal objections arising in the future based on this questionnaire having already appointed the editors. It should be easy to reword the question, or rather to ask two questions: "Should Ian Hickson be an editor of the next generation HTML specification?" and "Should Dave Hyatt be an editor of the next generation HTML specification?" Ideally, you would also ask a third question along the lines of "Should a Forms working group member be an editor of the forms component of the next generation HTML specification?" This in turn might lead to a questionnaire on whether the new HTML should be delivered as two components. part A presentation and part B forms. Some have called for the union, but prior efforts of both the Forms WG and the WHAT WG seem to substantiate the claim that there is merit in the componentization. ======================================================================================== Finally, with regard to cost, it was unclear why the above might be considered costly. There does not seem to be much cost in actually running another questionnaire, nor in respondents answering it as the questions are similar. Yet doing so would hopefully set ensure that the responses effectively answer the question of whether the collaborative effort on forms requested in our charters is viable and likely to succeed in the near term. I think it is, and I think the amended questionnaire would demonstrate that it is. Thanks, John M. Boyer, Ph.D. STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher Chair, W3C Forms Working Group Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software IBM Victoria Software Lab E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Sent by: public-html-request@w3.org 05/03/2007 07:09 AM To John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org> cc Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, www-archive@w3.org, public-html@w3.org Subject Re: help navigating your HTML spec text objection? [public-html readers, this thread continues from www-archive, starting with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007May/0016.html ] On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 23:12 -0700, John Boyer wrote: [...] > My main issue is that I cannot be the task force, nor can I be the > Forms WG part of the task force. So I can't do the work of the task > force in order to justify why the task force needs to do the technical > work. The proposal you put to vote was premature ... I have some sympathy for the point that the question was premature; some arguments have come to light only after the question was put, which suggests re-opening the discussion and putting a possibly amended question at a later date. I suspect that could be quite costly, so I hope that it doesn't come to that. I hope we can achieve consensus on this proposal after all... In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007May/0016.html I wrote: > > John, your objection includes... > > "... one of the XForms opponents even asked recently how > > a particular > > simple WF2 form would be written in XForms, so the objections > > are not even based on firm knowledge of XForms but rather > > on having developed WF2." > > -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results > > I'd appreciate a pointer to that message. And you replied... > "For the record, how would you do the above in XForms? " > > in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1720.html That's a message from Anne. Anne, I was under the impression that you (among others) were fairly familiar with both XForms and WF2. If that's not the case, then I'll have to re-think a few things. I wonder if you could answer your own question. John's reply continues... > I spent a number of hours on the IRC today with hixie, maciej, anne > and the crew. ... Sounds like that was quite productive. > Maciej complained today that my "objection" should be ignored because > it doesn't cite technical reasons. But that's because the vote is > not being taken on a technical issue. It is being taken on a > process issue (should we preempt the work of the task force), and > so my answer cited technical issues about the process. Indeed, the question is more a question about how we work than a technical question. Since we currently have 11 HTML WG members who have indicated interest in participating in the forms task force, http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tasks83/results I wonder if you could see this decision as not preempting the work of the task force, but working in parallel, John. > [the question] shouldn't have been put to vote just because > somebody proposed it because the proposal appears to run counter > to both the statements and intent of the charters by > preempting the technical work of the task force. [...] > The only way to reach real compromise is to put everyone on an equal > footing by staring with empty document and coming to terms on the > requirements In the joint task force on forms, everyone will be on equal footing. The question was not put just because somebody proposed it, but because somebody proposed it and, after discussion, a critical mass of support to do the work emerged. So while there is some grounds for re-considering the question in light of new arguments, it's not clear that the objection comes with a viable alternative for how we work. > ... the proposal appears to run counter to both the > statements and intent of the charters by preempting the technical > work of the task force. You and I evidently disagree on whether the proposal is consistent with our charter. As I said on 11 April: [[ I take this as advice to the chair about a conflict between this proposal and our charter. I'm not inclined to see it that way. The charter says we're to deliver "A language evolved from HTML4" http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#deliverables I consider this to be a proposal to skip from the HTML 4 spec to the HTML 5 spec in one step. You're free to argue against this proposal on the grounds that the step is too big. And I'm interested to learn about alternative ways to move forward. But I'm not inclined to see the charter as a compelling argument against this proposal. ]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0501.html http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tasks83/results [...various points elided; see www-archive for John's full message...] > I hope all of this helps at least clarify why my vote went the way it > did. I do sincerely hope that the chairs and/or the director are able > to find a way to support this objection for now in the interest of > getting the groups to really work together. As chair, I see some grounds to support your objection, but it's difficult to see whether re-considering this question is likely to result in substantially more consensus. The Director appoints not only the chairs of this WG, but also technical participants. So this response is also representative of the Director's position: W3C/Keio (Michael(tm) Smith) yes Karl, I trust you and Michael have discussed that position. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 19:41:21 UTC