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

Re: Design Principles, Section 1.6.1 relationship to HTML 4.01

From: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:26:16 -0400
Message-ID: <4A241D48.6010603@mozilla.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 6/1/09 2:05 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Rob Sayre wrote:
>> On 6/1/09 1:23 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> Rob Sayre wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/09 7:01 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>>> From my point of view, a push to publish a Design Principles 
>>>>> document as a formal W3C Note is a distraction.  To be clear, I am 
>>>>> not saying that the Design Principles document itself isn't useful 
>>>>> and interesting, but the effort to publish it as a Note means that 
>>>>> the details of the wording is something that must be discussed.
>>>> There seem to be group members laboring under the assumption that 
>>>> the Design Principles document does not apply to their suggestions 
>>>> or objections.
>>> It is a common debating technique to make grandiose claims without 
>>> specifics.
>> That claim is neither grandiose or vague. I could cite instances of 
>> this behavior, but singling out individuals seems unproductive.
>>> Now: what was your point?
>> That arguing against the document is fruitless procedural stalling. 
>> There are plenty of other working groups where one can work on 
>> standards that will never appear in a browser.
>> When the document comes up in argument, there is a possibility that 
>> the person citing the document as support is "wrapping themselves in 
>> the flag", but that is relatively easy to spot. If the document has 
>> been cited correctly, then the group really breaks down: I have seen 
>> claims that we should restart it from scratch, and claims that it's 
>> all a bunch of wishy-washy rubbish, but mostly I see claims that the 
>> document doesn't apply to everyone in the group.
> The requirement to provide citations is intended to ensure that the 
> original input is not mischaracterized.  I believe that the above 
> contains a number of such mischaracterizations, but I can't say for 
> sure, as you continue to decline to provide citations.

Here's a start:


- Rob
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 18:26:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:33 UTC