- From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:30:25 -0500
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Aug 13, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Shelley Powers wrote: > >> What makes you think I haven't been doing any kind of edits, to match >> any of the criticisms I've made[1]. I don't whip things out >> half-assed. I won't put anything online until I know I've gone >> through it and made sure all the i's are dotted, the t's crossed. It >> doesn't have to be bullet proof, but I would hope it could withstand >> at least a little shaking. > > I have no way of knowing the content of your private edits. For edits > to be relevant for the group to consider, we have to see it. If you'd > like to post something, I'd be glad to provide technical review. > I wrote this specifically to note that I'm aware that people would like to see me produce spec text, but that I'm slowish in writing it, and I fit it around my work. No other reason than acknowledge that I'm aware people are expecting to see something from me. >> >> I realize that others may be faster, and that's cool. I admire people >> who can put together a spec document quick as an eye blink. I can't. >> So don't assume because I haven't whipped anything out that I'm not >> making edits to the copy of the HTML 5 document I downloaded. >> >> Frankly, I'm not so sanguine about the whole "create alternative spec >> text and submit it for discussion", as others seem to be. I'll wait >> and see what happens with Manu's spec text, but how the third poll >> question is worded seems to make it especially difficult for Manu's >> work to succeed. I'm assuming the same fate rests with other efforts, >> too. But that's just me, others could be more positive about the >> approach. > > I think breaking out portions of the spec where Ian agrees in > principle with the split has a decent track record. XMLHttpRequest, > MIMESNIFF, WEBADDRESS/IRIbis, WebSocket, Web Storage and Web Database > have all been successfully split out, the last three by Hixie himself. > That being said, it's a lot of work and a big ongoing time commitment > to edit a breakout spec. I know because I tried once and failed. I > made a split out Window Object spec which fell way behind and which I > had to abandon. > I This to me represents a fundamental difference between us. I don't believe it sould be up to Ian to get "permission" to do anything with this specification. I also think it's abysmal that the W3C would allow itself to get into a position where one person determines the course of a specification underlying the future of the web. I'm also aware that there is a significant amount of work with this effort, re: my note that began this email. >> >> But this isn't about me, or about who is tweaking the text. People >> have expressed interest in being involved in this effort. I want to >> see if this interest still exists. If not, then I won't bring up this >> issue again to this group. I will still do the edits, because I want >> to show what my changes would look like, for my own sense of >> accomplishment. I won't dump them on the group, though. Frankly, I'll >> most likely just quit, and do my own thing in my own space. I have a >> couple of raised issues, but I have no concerns that one at least >> will find a new owner (Issue 76). And chances are, no one is >> interested in the other (Issue 77), anyway, and it can just be closed. > > Threatening to quit (for the umpteenth time) is not constructive and > not a good use of the group's time. I know this mailing list can be > tense at times, but no one is attacking you here. I believe the > majority of the group is totally open to RenderContext2D and the > related interfaces being split into a separate spec, if an editor > steps up. No one is stopping you from becoming that person. > Rather than this be a threat, this is my way of telling the group, reassuring the group, that I was not going to continue to bring this issue up. You must have read *my sentence following the one that seemed to trigger your anger. Note my earlier emails on this topic, when I asked for direction on how to handle this, because I was trying to find a way to make a proposal, to specify a concern, without someone in the group getting on my case, and being treated with hostility. I've decided it is impossible. As for being a "quitter" I never wanted to be part of this group. I joined only with great reluctance, and only because I thought I could help improve the HTML 5 specification. Evidently, that is also impossible. > Regards, > Maciej > >> >> *Believe it or not, I have no interest in wasting the group's time. >> >> Shelley >> >> [1] http://realtech.burningbird.net/html5-story-progress >> >> >> Shelley
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 20:31:09 UTC