Ian,
Editors are in charge of the words in a spec and simply make sure that the
will of the WG is reflected in the spec. I don't understand where there is
bad precedent in this. On the other hand, it would be very bad precedent if
editors attempted to override the will of the WG to make specs reflect
their own personal opinions.
Jon
Ian Hickson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: To
public-webapi-req João Eiras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc
Web APIs WG <[email protected]>
Subject
01/25/2007 11:18 Re: Selectors API naming
AM
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, João Eiras wrote:
> >
> > Given that this discussion was done behind closed doors, and given
> > that there is certainly not consensus on this (the first reaction I
> > saw on IRC to this was "wow, those names suck!")
>
> I find these much better than all other propositions, and I'm not lazy
> to type longer method names, if they're descriptive. So, it's a matter
> of personal opinion that "names suck".
My argument is not that the names suck. My argument is that there is not
concensus, that the decision process was opaque and behind-closed-doors,
and that having the working group override the editor on such a trivial
issue as naming is a bad precedent for open Web spec development.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
