Re: Publishing a new draft

Larry Masinter wrote:
> I wanted to add:
> 
> I'd be happy to reconsider my objection if you could
> actually please respond to the concerns I raised about
> public misunderstanding of HTML status, and the
> practical effect of announcing another Working
> Draft.

I will not debate W3C documented processes with you.  If you wish to get 
the W3C to change their processes, the person you want to talk to is not me.

> For example, you might disagree about the effect,
> or disagree about the importance of the concern,
> or think that it isn't a legitimate topic for
> the working group, or that they will be addressed
> in some other way, or something else.
> 
> I sent my concerns to you several days ago
> and have not seen a response addressing them.
> 
> Yes, I'm sure you can continue to stonewall
> on my question and force a "vote" on the
> issue. 
> 
> Personally, I think the continued deception
> is quite harmful to the future stability
> of the web, and that fixing it SOON
> is important operationally, and that
> we should do what we can to prevent
> the operational difficulties that are
> being caused by it.
> 
> http://masinter.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-saying-is-not-standard-matters.html
> 
> If you consider my arguments "without merit"
> and thus not worthy of a response on this
> procedural issue, then yes, we will have to
> waste working group time on this non-technical
> topic for which a solution is completely within
> your control.

As you might expect, I take exception to the word "deception", but I am 
going to assume that that was a calculated provocation and will simply 
chose to ignore it.

At the present time, the document that Ian is editing is clearly a 
collaborative effort, and one that the Working Group has recognized as 
such.  No, it has not been assessed as enjoying consensus at this point 
or even being assessed as meeting the basic requirements of the Working 
Group.  Nor, according to W3C processes need it do so at this point. 
Again, if you disagree with W3C processes, feel free to challenge them 
elsewhere, but until that work is complete, I intend to try to follow them.

Meanwhile, there are two other drafts that you have cited.  Neither of 
which have been recognized as collaborative efforts of the Working 
Group.  We discussed this on February 24th, and per my notes on Action 
109, "Larry, DanC, Julian, Cynthia" all volunteered to contribute to 
this document.

Now, over 4 months later, that work is still yet to be done, and is a 
key reason -- and perhaps the only reason -- why Mike's document hasn't 
been published as a Working Draft of the HTML Working group.  During 
that time Ian has made over 600 commits to his draft.

On 23 April, a month after your promise, "HTML 5, A vocabulary and 
associated APIs for HTML and XHTML" was published.  Now, after yet 
another 3 months you propose to stop the publishing of that document 
until you and others actually follow through on your promises.

Are you sure that you really want to discuss with me the topic of 
"stonewalling"?

> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net

- Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 22:36:13 UTC