Sam Ruby On 09-07-31 00.49:
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Sam Ruby On 09-07-30 21.27:
Ben Adida wrote:
"For better or worse, the HTML WG is operating under a CTR process."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0063.html
I mispoke.
When? I think you were just as clear in May that we work under CTR, as
you are clear today that we are not.
[...] I initially did that in a clumsy way (which Ben has
pointed out), but within a few days I attempted to straighten it out. See:
http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/05/12/Microdata#c1242233866
I apologize for the confusion.
Ok. Though I may still be confused ...
[... snip ... ]
That being said, I reject any notion that any failure of people outside
of the WHATWG to produce a coherent proposal is somehow a failure of the
WHATWG in general or Ian in particular. In particular, if Mike's draft
and Manu's draft are not yet ready, it is not somehow because they are
either more (or less) equal that Ian's, and certainly is not a reason to
block forward progress of Ian's draft.
Ian's draft has some entirely white spots as well - it is not
ready. What you say about "failure" is convoluted - I don't get it
(but may be that's ok ...)
I[f] any member of the working group believe that now is the time to
"switch branches", then please propose exactly that.
_Add_ branches was my subject.
[...]
In particular, I will draw your attention to:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0909.html
"we welcome Ian Hickson and Dave Hyatt as editors (while remaining open
to the possibility of other editors in the future)."
I have, and do, encourage people to work with these editors. I have,
and do, encourage people who have found that approach to be a dead end
to not give up and actually produce concrete spec text. In the long
run, it is my hope that what the W3C will publish will constitute
leadership that people will willingly follow.
In at least two cases (declaring what Google, Yahoo!, CC and others are
doing with RDFa as non-conforming, and declaring what JAWS and other
tools support with the summary attribute as obsolete) I see areas where
I believe that intelligent people can reasonably disagree. I will
further note that in both cases, there is no disagreement over what the
browser (and in particular, parser) behavior is or should be, what is in
dispute is author conformance requirements.
This seems like an adequate description of the problem with the
<?ProcessingInstruction > syntax, as well.
However, the problem with @summary is that it creates a dispute
over its usefulness - who should on listen to? HTML 5 or some
other authority? In the draft, @summary has no role to play.
But I digress. I have every respect for Mike and Manu. Both have
produced concrete proposals. However, neither proposal has been
submitted for consideration by the working group. I do not see that as
an optional step that can be sidestepped.
But we could show us, as WG, so interested in their drafts, that
we ask how long time they would need to make them _ready enough_
for publication. Or even express that they are ready enough. I
think Manu's draft is. In fact, it is shaped as addition to Ian's
draft.
Meanwhile, the Working Group is within its rights to decline to approve
the publication of a working draft that contains micro-data, or to
insist that RDFa be included or that micro-data (or the recent change to
summary) be explicitly marked.
However, absolutely nobody has step forwarded and requested that any of
these be done.
Then let me step forward and request that Anne's _Differences_
document not being published, before it is adequately updated
w.r.t. to what it currently labels "esoteric SGML" features. I
have just outlined to Anne what he should do - I hope that will be
enough [1]. (I consider this a modest request as it is only about
making visible what is already in Ian's draft.)
Instead, individuals use rhetoric like "lottery". That I have little
tolerance for.
About '"lottery"' - I put it in in quotes to milden the tone. I
should have said "all these drafts" instead. ;-)
[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/4a7221d9.9070...@malform.no
--
leif halvard silli
