Re: not closed by process rules [was: So, what's left?]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Dan Connolly wrote:
> Arjun Ray wrote:
> 
> Er... which stuff is that? I see some XHTML publications the first
> week of January, but nothing new; this stuff has been available
> for months; e.g.

For someone content with stroboscopic views, yes.  My basic point was
this:

> > That *includes* grokking the stuff before venturing to comment.  

A spec, however many versions, is mainly the end result of a
discussion process.  In my experience, understanding is helped far
more by checking the 'audit trail' so to speak, because it obviates
either need or cause to go over old ground.

If you think that W3C specs are models of standa-alone clarity, I have
some bad news for you:)

> It's a schedule that was arrived at after *significant* negotiation.
> But if you can make a case that the public hasn't had sufficient
> time to review it (in the face of evidence such as the above) then
> those negotiations can be re-opened.

I'm not going to make a case, because negotiating deadlines isn't
essential to my point, which is access to a discussion archive.  And
on that subject, how about moving the w3c-xml-sig list to the Public
Area?  It's 1-1/2 years dead.

> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-sgml-wg/1997Jun/0462.html
> > 
> > Are you now syaing that all that was really unnecessary?
> 
> I suppose; I'm saying it was by choice, not by logical consequence
> of W3C Process. 

Well, was the idea bruited for the HTML-WG?  

> The situation was: other working groups that the XML WG was going to
> start collaborating with were W3C member-confidential. So there
> was a choice between smooth(-er) collaboration between the XML WG
> and those other WGs on the one hand, and easy access to the public
> to the XML WG proceedings on the other. The choice we (Jon, I, et. al.)
> made was to facilitate collaboration with other W3C working groups
> at the expense of public access.

What!??

For XML!!??

You have just said that it was necessary to internalize the
development of XML - a *fundamental* technology - for political
expedience.  I can understand it when vendor interests - such as the
value-added features they might want to protect from premature
exposure - are involved for specific things.  But not for XML.

Please tell me I've read this wrong.

> > I think the way Jon Bosak ran w3c-sgml-wg was a model of excellence.
> 
> The trick was integrating the work of w3c-sgml-wg with the work of
> other groups in and around W3C. That sort of thing is rarely, if ever,
> smooth.

And, so, as Walter says, the public gets it the neck instead;-)


Arjun

Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2000 01:12:32 UTC