Re: XPointer subset minority opinion

Folks-- We posted the minority opinion to the comments list, as is 
customary, only after consulting several W3C people for their thoughts on 
the matter.  It was suggested that we post the opinion here but make 
Member-only links to the proposal.  We intended no subterfuge in linking 
only to the revised proposal; we just figured that the original was already 
in the archives.  Sorry for the confusion.

For the record, here is the full set of links (still Member-only for the 
moment):

Original proposal:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-linking-ig/2001Apr/att-0000/01-NOTE-FIXptr-20010410.htm

Revised proposal:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2001Apr/att-0134/01-NOTE-FIXptr-20010425

We have tried to accede to the wishes of all the W3C staffers we've 
consulted throughout this process.  I will check out the possibility of 
putting the proposal in a public archive.

         Eve

At 11:08 AM 5/5/01 -0400, Steven J. DeRose wrote:
>At 8:07 AM -0400 5/5/01, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>>At 09:09 AM 5/4/01 -0400, Steven J. DeRose wrote:
>>>I find the 'minority opinion' piece objectionable because it makes 
>>>several clearly false claims, as well as including several proposals and 
>>>pleas rather than limiting itself to expressing opinion or position.
>>>
>>>I thus believe it is necessary for the WG to issue a majority rationale 
>>>statement, lest inaccurate and misleading statements be accepted for 
>>>lack of less partisan information.
>>
>>Those of us outside the WG might like to see what FIXptr is, in order 
>>that we might evaluate 'inaccurate and misleading' and 'partisan' for 
>>ourselves.
>
>I heartily approve of that; indeed I intended to post a thorough analysis 
>of it yesterday until I realized that the authors' link to their own work 
>was to the members-only area. Thus I couldn't very well post an analysis 
>without potentially breaking confidentiality. It seems odd to me for 
>someone to submit an opinion to a public list, without having put their 
>proposal that it is about, anywhere public (at least, nowhere I could find 
>even after a lot of Web searching). But since they did, it unfortunately 
>generates the impression of controversy without the ability to resolve it.
>
>It also seems from their paper, that they have made changes after the 
>decision on their (already 12th-hour) proposal. Showing the actual 
>proposal that was made and rejected would seem more appropriate.
>
>I have no doubt that an informed analysis of the proposal will reject it, 
>as you can conclude happened in the WG (from the fact the paper calls 
>itself a "minority" opinion, and from the small number of signers to it).

--
Eve Maler                                             +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Development  eve.maler @ east.sun.com

Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 10:56:54 UTC