Re: ISSUE-41: Decentralized-extensibility - Straw Poll for Objections

Edward O'Connor, Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:08:02 -0700:
> Hi Leif,
> 
>> Reading the socalled "zero-edit" proposal ("heavy-edit" would have
>> been more accurate names)[…]
> 
> The CP proposes that we make no changes to the draft to address
> ISSUE-41. Sounds like a zero-edit CP to me.

The HTML5 editor says in bug 9590 that the "vendor--feature" syntax is 
likely to change. So who knows what 'zero-edit' means in this case.

[*] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9590

I think most WG members expected you to create a zero-*change* 
proposal. Whereas your proposal documents several changes in HTML5 
(that HTML5 currently refers to Microdata as a "feature" and that 
"vendor--feature" was added to make HTML5 more extensible, for vendors).
 
>>>> The change proposals have existed for months. The zero-edit
>>>> proposal has existed for 4 days. [4] Had it been presented to the
>>>> group in due course, then probably much of this would have been
>>>> solved in time.
>>> 
>>> The length of time is irrelevant.
>> 
>> Not to me as a Change Proposal author. It is highly relevant to know
>> what the other proposals are about and so.
> 
> Work on the zero-edit CP was done entirely in public, on the WG wiki. As
> you can see here, substantive edits started on 11 September:
> 
> 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/index.php?title=User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-41&action=history
> 
> The WG wiki has an Atom feed of recent changes, which you can subscribe
> to in your feed reader of choice:
> 
> 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom

That is nothing compared to how long the other proposals have been 
available. Besides, I honestly did not expect that a _zero edit_ 
proposal would be able to tell me anything I did not know. I did for 
sure not expect that it could learn us all about a new extensibility 
option.

Yes, this extensibility option has been know a little longer within the 
WHATwg community. But even there, it seems to only have been known for 
a month, judging from the comments in bug 9590.

>> What would get us there, is that the co-chairs proactively coach the
>> change proposals.
> 
> Instead, I think it behooves change proposal authors to seek feedback

Feedback is a reciprocal thing. I got no answers: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0059

> from others—the chairs and/or other interested parties—early and often,
> which I did in this case. Feedback from at least a half dozen people
> substantially affected the CP in numerous ways.

What is wrong is that the zero-edit proposal weren't presented roughly 
when the other proposals were presented. That is a responsibility of 
the co-chairs. But it is also a responsibility of the HTML5 editor, who 
- it turns out - realized that HTML5 needed one more extensibility 
options - and added _vendor-attribute/vendor--attribute, despite that 
he publicly said that HTML5 had enough extensibility options.

>> I prefer having an available, but heavily edited, CP available for
>> some time, to not have any CP at all[.]
> 
> As described above, every edit of this CP has been available for review
> from its inception.

I congratulate you with your - today - 16 days old proposal.

>> (and much thanks to its authors for honestly using exactly the
> language that that the editor has used in the spec!)
> 
> You're welcome.
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Friday, 24 September 2010 18:43:09 UTC