W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2009

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

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:25:35 +0000
Message-Id: <C7CC4021-4331-4232-ADF7-1FF43021686A@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: www-archive@w3.org
Hiya Doug,

> 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.

Yes! It was much appreciated.

>   You and I have talked about this
> before, though, so it wasn't news to you.

Yes, and as I recall, I said, "I can't evaluate what you're saying  
without access to the evidence" :)

> > 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,

I agree (with the "seem")...I'm just saying that the picture isn't  
entirely clear. There are many explanations for why there was the  
break, including that there was agreement and then (subsequent to  
that post) people changed their mind.

> given the subsequent email I allude
> to, which was my assertion.

I'm happy to parse things more fine grainedly with you, if you like.  
It's a bit awkward to do so when we can't quote :)

>   I've also chatted directly with the poster
> of the email about it, and that reinforced my view.

Sure, but I haven't :)

> > 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.

I think with regard to the "thousand cuts" this is more dispositive.

But I agree, none of this is remotely conclusive.

> Again, I wasn't there, but I
> don't think that changes my overall assessment of the specification,
> implementation, and deployment process.

Hmm. Ok, it would tweak mine, if yours were mine :)

> > 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.

Absolutely. And it's a separate question as to whether they (or I!)  
are right about compromisingness.

But your counterclaim to Ian's seems fairly weak. Instead of 3 he  
clearly spoke for 2 appropriately.
The remaining 1 had, in the past, issued very similar and strongly  
worded complaints.

Frankly, when I saw those two email juxtaposed, I was strongly  
disposed toward your POV. Going back (and forward) farther and trying  
to sort things out leaves me much more uncertain.

> 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.

I don't think that addresses the email I referenced. I personally  
have little hope of sorting out the truth of those claims or your  
claims now, much less the subsequent judgments.

> 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.

Less useful to whom? Which stakeholders?

One thing that drives my compromising a lot is that I value the spec  
and getting the spec through more than other people. But this is a  
dysfunction, I think. I could see myself getting driven into bomb  
throwing. I really, in spite of some appearances :), try to avoid that.

> > 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.

Probably! Hence my desire to figure out how to avoid it again. Which  
starts in understanding it.

> > 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.

Good show!

> >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.

Thanks for the discussion.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:24:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:34 UTC