On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:24:24 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/26/07, Charles McCathieNevile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since I have the reponsibility for getting this group to finish its work
in a particular timeframe, I made a decision to find some kind of
resolution in line with the process under which we are working. Which
happens to offer the opportunity to discuss with Microsoft in advance,
and with various other implementors, and see if they are prepared to
agree to something.
I'm not trying to hold you up. Keep the terrible name. In the end, it
is easy to route around.
Indeed. This was a point raised again and again by various people.
The point on the process stands, though, and shows a awful flaw that
future W3C WGs need to avoid. Perhaps this WG should be rechartered as
well. The W3C process should produce standards that use idiomatic
HTML, JavaScript, and CSS. That never happens. Instead, we get the
typical W3C product: a result of compromise between IDE vendors,
Java/C# programmers, and Semantic Web advocates.
Feel free to propose a new W3C process of some kind, but that isn't
actually the
concern of this working group, which has certain tasks to do under an
existing
set of conditions. You should take them up with the right part of W3C if
you
want to have an effective conversation.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Try Opera 9.1 http://opera.com
