- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:34:14 -0400
- To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- CC: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Shelley Powers wrote: > >>> I am still unsure whether collaboration is actually useful in terms >>> of the current procedural regime: >>> If i write a spec that only has changes to the alt section i would >>> think it more likely to gain support, than if it also included RDFa, >>> thus i am discouraged from collaboration. >>> >>> I consider a much fairer and more manageable way to handle it would >>> be to allow people to write modified sections or subsection and then >>> put each section up to a vote if consensus cannot be achieved. >>> if there is not a section or subsection that has a draft alternative >>> has been produced and there are no formal objections realted to it, >>> then it can be considered as having consensus and be left in the >>> draft for last call. >>> example: >>> a vote on 3 choices >>> >>> ians image section >>> steves image section >>> person x's image section >>> >>> which ever gains the most support is the one that goes into the FPWD >>> for last call. >>> >>> another example: >>> >>> manus RDFa section >>> ian's microdata section >>> both microdate and RDFa >>> >>> which ever gains the most support is the one that goes into the FPWD >>> for last call. >>> >>> then we could end up with a document that is the product of the W3C >>> HTML working group. >> >> If that's how people want to proceed, I'm OK with that, with but one >> minor reservation... ultimately there will need to to be somebody who >> is willing and able to do the necessary integration. I gather that >> Manu is willing to do that up to a point, but it would not surprise me >> if he became considerably less enthusiastic about investing the time >> if (for example) RDFa wasn't included. >> >> I wouldn't worry too much about it at this point. If people want a >> vote, there will be a vote. Even my opinion doesn't count for all >> that much: for example, I would prefer a vote on a document that >> contains tangible spec text for the table element including a summary >> element, but people who are preparing the text of the vote apparently >> want something else. If people agree to what they prepare, we will go >> with that. > > I think you misunderstand what people are willing to propose. For > instance, I imagine those folk wanting to put a @summary vote out to be > willing to put out tangible text for that section, but they don't want > to have to duplicate the entire document just to propose that one > section. You see? That makes no sense. There's a reason sections have > identifiers. If you look at the change log for action 128, you will see that it briefly had a status of pending review: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/128?changelog The reason why it was listed as such (again briefly) is that it was felt that sending a draft to the chairs merited such a status. The status now reads "open" as the draft vote is not available for public review. Suffice it to say that I have seen a draft, and it does not match what you imagine, in that it is not tangible spec text. But as I said, if that draft ends up being what people agree to vote on, I will accommodate and facilitate. As to "That makes no sense", I have a concrete counter example, provided by Manu: http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/Overview.html#rdfa I grant that such an approach might not make sense in all cases. In other cases, it has the potential to answer a lot of questions before they are even asked. I maintain that it isn't overly difficult to do (though I imagine that Manu has ideas now on how to streamline the process even further), and that by pro-actively answering a number of unasked questions, products produced as a result of such an approach might attract more support. In any case, not a requirement, but something to consider. Or not. > As for editing, I don't think there would be that much of a problem > finding someone willing to integrate the different vote results. But you > left something out: Ian Hickson is the only "official" editor of the > only "official" version of HTML 5. (Ignoring the no longer active Apple > co-author.) > > So, how do you get to A from B, Sam? How do you get from our existing > state today, to one where these supposedly alternative sections are > voted on, and then there needs to be integration of the voting result > made by _someone_, when the only person who is _allowed_ editing access > is Ian Hickson? > > It gets fuzzy after that point. Sorry if I'm asking for what's obvious > to everyone else, but could you give me the precise steps to take, from > prep of voting text, to vote, to incorporation into existing working > draft based on your preferred approach (camera ready spec text)? Anybody who wishes to edit can arrange to do so: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0018.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0017.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0019.html Once a tangible work product (be it a completely independent spec or a "mashup") is produced and a minimum level of diverse public support is demonstrated, a vote can be called for[1], and the work product (and by implication, the editor that produced it) can be viewed as "official". >>> -- >>> with regards >>> >>> Steve Faulkner >>> Technical Director - TPG Europe >>> Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium >>> >>> www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> | www.wat-c.org >>> <http://www.wat-c.org> >>> Web Accessibility Toolbar - >>> http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html >> >> - Sam Ruby > > Shelley - Sam Ruby [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jul/0135.html
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2009 17:34:58 UTC