- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:30:39 -0400
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 06/10/2010 07:53 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > -public-html > +www-archive, +Maciej > > Taking this off-list because it's turning into a process discussion that > doesn't belong on public-html. > > On 2010-06-09 03:48, Sam Ruby wrote: >> To have the W3C specification refer readers to another specification for >> an exact list of differences, and to have that other specification >> indicate that the omission was due to political reasons is intolerable. > > To have the HTMLWG degrade into nothing but a massive political debate, > where decisions are made based on "proposals that create the weakest > objections" — where you have demonstrated time and time again that that > simply means the loudest group wins [1] — is intolerable. If loudness were the criteria, then microdata would not have been split out. [snip] > [1] This has been the case with Microdata, which was split out simply to > appease the RDFa proponents with technically weak arguments about > fairness and "creating a level playing field". And it was the case here > with the statement about image analysis heuristics, where you clearly > just went with the most vocal group, rather than the most technically > sound argument; or at the very least finding a compromise solution that > involved rephrasing it to clarify the meaning, as I previously suggested. It would be helpful if you were to actually read the decisions. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/att-0218/issue-76-decision.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0001.html - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 12:31:26 UTC