Re: sXBL and XBL2 (was: Moving past last call for HTML5)

Hi, Bijan-

Bijan Parsia wrote (on 2/25/09 8:02 AM):
>
> Fortunately, I have member access and was able to go back :)

Which is why I included the link.  You and I have talked about this 
before, though, so it wasn't news to you.


> I don't think that link is, in context, clear support for your qualms.
> It is a response to:
> (Member-confidential)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-binding-tf/2005JulSep/0062.html

The claims there seem overstated, given the subsequent email I allude 
to, which was my assertion.  I've also chatted directly with the poster 
of the email about it, and that reinforced my view.


> In which there may have been some overstating, but in other email Ian
> seems to fairly consistently refer to "Opera and Mozilla". So this could
> have been a simple miscommunication.  Also, if you consider:
>
> (Member-confidential)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-binding-tf/2004AprJun/0483.html
>
> Then Ian's picture has some more support.

Okay.  I will note that the email I pointed to was dated some 15 months 
after the one you refer to.  So, the poster of both emails seems to have 
changed his mind in that intervening year.  Again, I wasn't there, but I 
don't think that changes my overall assessment of the specification, 
implementation, and deployment process.


> I can say, personally, that in groups I've been in, I've often felt
> stuck in the "I must concede" role and "compromise means I give stuff up
> with nothing in return". Indeed, I've often felt that other people won't
> even *try* to accommodate my view (e.g., I often find myself in charter
> fights initiated by other people). When I do concede something major,
> for the sake of progress, mind, that never seems to benefit me.
>
> Frankly, I hate that ;) It doesn't seem very healthy for a group, either.

I think we've all been there.  I think that's the way many people in the 
HTML5 WG (and who have dropped out of that group or given up on it) feel 
right now.

A little more context: AIUI, RCC was well on its way to being specced 
out and was largely implemented when the SVG WG was asked to combine its 
efforts with XBL, a somewhat similar language, with the assertion that 
sXBL (note the "s" for "SVG") would be SVG-specific, and the next 
version of the language would be more generalized.  So, the SVG WG had 
already compromised, as well... it seems there was compromise on both sides.

Specs change when more people are brought in.  That's usually useful 
(many eyes), but often painful.  It's less useful for a spec to be 
severely delayed or abandoned.


> Now, I may be wrong in my assessment of my situation, but there you go.
> I have no assessment of the sXBL case other than I don't find your
> pointer compelling in context.

Like I said, this was my interpretation, and I wasn't there.  I only 
know the end result, which was not favorable for anyone.


> P.S. Sorry for all the member confidential links and obliqueness...but
> if you are going to raise this stuff publicly, then I don't know what
> else to do.

Not a problem for me.  Like I said, I wish that email list was public. 
I pushed (successfully) to have the SVG and WebApps WG to be public 
groups, so this sort of thing is subject to more sunlight in the future.


>It doesn't seem to me that the W3C has an Audit Board which
> tries to analyze failures and draw lessons from them. That could be a
> very helpful thing.

Agreed.


Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs

Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:14:32 UTC