I forgot to include the link to Wayne Carr's post
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Sep/0079.html
And I just noticed Ian Hickson's response on the differences between the
W3C and the WHATWG documents
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Sep/0073.html
In particular, note the following paragraph:
"As far as I'm aware, most of the changes are either editorial issues
driven by different opinions of what makes a good spec (e.g. the W3C
copy omits a non-normative paragraph suggesting that browsers can apply
image analysis heuristics to help users), or normative issues where the
W3C decision is, as far as I'm aware, simply technically wrong or
inferior (e.g. there was a decision relating to the term "fallback
content" where IMHO the decision is based on an incorrect understanding
of the term in context). The differences in the W3C HTML5 spec vs the
WHATWG spec are always minor enough that there's not been much point me
making a fuss over them here; it just means the W3C's spec is slightly
less technically solid, without it seriously affecting implementations
or interop. (The chairs are aware of a case involving another spec where
the difference was not minor and where there therefore was a fuss caused.)"
Ian Hickson assumes he's always right, while everyone else is wrong. This is
exactly the wrong kind of attitude for being a spec editor. You have to have
confidence in your ability, but you also have to have a sense of
perspective--enough to know you don't have all the answers. And you have to
have empathy, though I realize that with some of those participating in HTML5,
empathy is a dirty word.
Ian literally thinks he knows more than anyone else. In actuality, though, Ian
isn't necessarily experienced enough with the web generally to have back his
belief with actual fact.
You can't fix arrogance with empty procedures. All you can do is squash it like
a bug: quickly and decisively.
Shelley
