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

Re: Design Principles, Section 1.6.1 relationship to HTML 4.01

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:22:46 -0700
Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-id: <0506A27F-2806-44A1-BAFA-90A3EF69EE43@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On Jun 1, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> OK, I will be more direct then.
> I believe that you have mischaracterized people's requests.  I do  
> not believe that you have done so intentionally, but nevertheless,  
> you have mischaracterized people's requests.

If you mean regarding the requests to make the wording of principles  
more or less firm, I do not believe I have done so. I have gotten  
requests of all the forms I cited. If you really want to be more  
direct, please explain specifically how I have mischaracterized  
people's requests.

> From there, you say that you can't please everybody, and then  
> proceed not to convincing others, but stating what you prefer.
> And then you complete this by changing the subject, away from Design  
> Principles, to a shared vocabulary.
> And now you state that a shared vocabulary would reduce the  
> usefulness of the document.
> I don't doubt that the existing document could be defended as Design  
> Principles.  All I am asking is that you do so.

When I did so, it only seemed to result in more pointless discussion.  
I have stated my view, which is that Design Principles for language  
design do not have to be 100% absolute, that you cannot treat it as  
black and white. I have also pointed out that some claims of Design  
Principles being misapplied were simply wrong, which was met with  
repetition of the same points.

Whether or not everyone agrees with them, these principles *have* been  
used to develop HTML5, and a proposal that is wildly out of sync with  
them is unlikely to see success. Indeed, they have occasionally been  
used successfully to change the editor's mind about things.

>>> 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.
>> It seems that we are obligated to publish it as a Working Group  
>> Note by the Process (something I wasn't aware of when the document  
>> was first proposed for FPWD). Fortunately a Note doesn't have to  
>> have consensus (other than consensus to stop work), so at some  
>> point we can just stop discussion and publish.
> I'll note that publish "something" does not necessarily mean publish  
> with a misleading abstract.

I'm not saying we should publish the current draft as-is.

>>> If this is something upon which consensus can be obtained quickly,  
>>> I'm inclined to suggest that we find a mechanism by which this  
>>> discussion can be moved off to a separate mailing list that  
>>> focuses on the precise wording, and ask that the group that is  
>>> working on such report back here only on major events and  
>>> substantive changes.
>> Honestly, I think that may be more attention than the wording  
>> deserves. Looking back on this 213-message thread(*), I don't see a  
>> lot of increase in shared understanding, or concrete suggestions  
>> for the document. I also see that you did not issue guidance to any  
>> of the more frequent and repetitive posters on this thread, as you  
>> sometimes do by way of moderation. I am not sure the thread would  
>> have been more useful if it occurred on another mailing list,  
>> especially if no one were there to moderate at all.
> My previous note was not meant as an intent to moderate, but as a  
> suggestion. *This* note is meant as an intent to moderate.
> If you insist that this document is useful as a set of Design  
> Principles, then feel free to defend that.  To the extent that you  
> have declined to do so, it is understandable that people are asking  
> exactly what *is* your intent.

Who asked what exactly my intent is? I believe I missed that question.

Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 22:23:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:40 UTC