Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

Peter Kasting wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:06 PM, John Foliot > wrote: > > That said, the barrier to equal entry remains high: > http://burningbird.net/node/28 I don't necessarily agree with most of Shelley's take on the situation. I do agree with the

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

John Foliot wrote: Sam Ruby wrote: Really? This appears to be exactly the single, special status privilege currently reserved for Ian Hickson. False. ...and yes, I stand corrected. Although the *impression* that this is the current status remains fairly pervasive; however I will endeavor t

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:06 PM, John Foliot wrote: > That said, the barrier to equal entry remains high: > http://burningbird.net/node/28 I don't understand. That page says "We're told that to propose changes to the document for consideration, we need to ..." and then a long list of things.

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

John Foliot wrote: Peter Kasting wrote: It seems like the only thing you could ask for beyond this is the ability to directly insert your own changes into the spec without prior editorial oversight. I think that might be what you're asking for. This seems very unwise. Really? This appears to

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

Maciej Stachowiak wrote: The lesson I would learn from open source is that finding people willing to do useful work is much more important than tools or project organization. While good projects strive to refine their process, my experience is that people who start out by asking project-wide

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Jul 26, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > I would also caution that, by their nature, standards projects are not > > quite the same thing as software projects. While the way HTML5 has been > > run

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

On Jul 26, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: Maciej Stachowiak wrote: I would also caution that, by their nature, standards projects are not quite the same thing as software projects. While the way HTML5 has been run is much more in the spirit of open source than many past Web standard

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > WebKit also has, arguably, a more open development model than either > Linux or HTML5. There are many reviewers with the authority to approve > a checkin, even more people with the ability to directly commit to the > code after review, and even more people who have submit

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

Peter Kasting wrote: > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Manu Sporny > wrote: > > > If people sending emails containing proposals, and having the editor > > directly respond to all of those emails, frequently by changing the > > spec, does not give you

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

On Jul 26, 2009, at 8:30 PM, Peter Kasting wrote: So far you have not given a use case (that I've seen) so much as a vague assertion that because the number of spec contributors is in the hundreds rather than tens of thousands, there is some not-well- defined barrier to entry in the above

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > I'm not proposing that we allow people to directly stomp all over Ian's > specification - that wouldn't help anything. I am also not suggesting > that Ian should change how he authors his HTML5 specification. > > What I'm proposing is that othe

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

Michael Enright wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: >> I can git clone the Linux kernel, mess around with it and submit a patch >> to any number of kernel maintainers. If that patch is rejected, I can >> still share the changes with others in the community. Using the same >

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

I have only responded below to the parts of your email that I think are critical to the point you're making (as I understand it). On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > > If people sending emails containing proposals, and having the editor > directly respond to all of those emails

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

Peter Kasting wrote: > Ian is really the only one that is actively allowed to produce anything > of significance in WHAT WG. In general, if he doesn't agree with you, it > doesn't go in. > > It's already been stated explicitly multiple times in the past that the > HTML5 process is not

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: That being said, inline spec comments sound interesting. Can you expand on this? Are these meant to be private and only shown to Ian? Shown to everything who views the spec (optionally, of course)? Sent to the mailing list? If

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

Manu Sporny wrote: Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: "Problem: A Kitchen Sink Specification" Ian recently implemented a way to hide or highlight the UA guidelines that confuse so many more casual readers. Does this help? (I know it helps me. ^_^) If I knew it existed it might have helped a bit. Even no

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: > >> That sounds to me like a good reason to declare a freeze at last > >> call, and release an immutable "beta 1" on which comments can be > >> made. Then close the comment

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

John Drinkwater wrote: > Just one comment on the Action: More Committers + Distributed Source > Control section, as it’s something I generally agree with. Good to know :) > Of course, you could do this today without anyones input, produce a > dvcs repo from svn, edit sections as you see fit, take

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: >> That sounds to me like a good reason to declare a freeze at last call, >> and release an immutable "beta 1" on which comments can be made. Then >> close the comment period on beta 1, and (potentially) release a beta 2, >>

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/a-new-way-forward/ > > A few comments as I see them (these all happen to be disagreements, > but that's because it's easiest to get up the urge to write about > things that I disagree with): If all that is written about is what you disagree

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Joseph Pecoraro wrote: > > > > I think we need an approach that doesn't involve in-flow links... I'm > > just not sure what the right solution is. Maybe alt-double-clicking > > should show a menu with two options, "submit comment here" or "change > > section status"? > > Al

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Justin Lebar wrote: That being said, inline spec comments sound interesting. >>> I'm not quite sure what the UI would look like, but if anyone has any >>> ideas, feel free to e-mail me directly and we can figure something >>> out. (This would be exce

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

I think we need an approach that doesn't involve in-flow links... I'm just not sure what the right solution is. Maybe alt-double-clicking should show a menu with two options, "submit comment here" or "change section status"? Alt-Double Click doesn't sound very discoverable. Even if I knew

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Justin Lebar wrote: > >> > >> That being said, inline spec comments sound interesting. > > > I'm not quite sure what the UI would look like, but if anyone has any > > ideas, feel free to e-mail me directly and we can figure something > > out. (This would be exceedingly usefu

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

Aryeh Gregor wrote on 7/23/2009 8:42 PM: On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Peter Kasting wrote: For my part, I would be very unhappy to see the HTML5 process made more consensus-driven; I much prefer systems that approximate benevolent dictatorships, and I don't perceive the current leadership of

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

>> That being said, inline spec comments sound interesting. > I'm not quite sure what the > UI would look like, but if anyone has any ideas, feel free to e-mail me > directly and we can figure something out. (This would be exceedingly > useful once we're in last call in a few months.) Ian, Other

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Bil Corry wrote: > Turns out it's the mindless collectives that make the best rational decisions: > >        Mindless Collectives Better at Rational Decision-Making Than Brainy > Individuals >         > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mindless-col

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

Aryeh Gregor wrote on 7/23/2009 8:42 PM: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Peter Kasting wrote: >> For my part, I would be very unhappy to see the HTML5 process made more >> consensus-driven; I much prefer systems that approximate benevolent >> dictatorships, and I don't perceive the current lead

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

Manu Sporny wrote: form consensus: fail (but that's what the W3C is for, right?) From what I've read, there's only one issue of major importance where consensus has failed to form, namely the Great Codecs Debate. And as representatives have decried the other's positions as complete non-starters

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Peter Kasting wrote: > For my part, I would be very unhappy to see the HTML5 process made more > consensus-driven; I much prefer systems that approximate benevolent > dictatorships, and I don't perceive the current leadership of the group to > be insufficiently resp

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > That being said, inline spec comments sound interesting. Can you expand > on this? Are these meant to be private and only shown to Ian? Shown to > everything who views the spec (optionally, of course)? Sent to the > mailing list? If anybody wou

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > > I can git clone the Linux kernel, mess around with it and submit a patch > to any number of kernel maintainers. If that patch is rejected, I can > still share the changes with others in the community. Using the same > tools as everybody else,

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > contribute ideas: great! > scrutinize them: wonderful! > form consensus: fail (but that's what the W3C is for, right?) > produce: fail (unless we don't want to scale the community) > > Ian is really the only one that is actively allowed to prod

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

L. David Baron wrote: > The above document says: > > # The single greatest complaint heard from the standards community > # concerning the development of HTML5 is that it has not allowed > # for the scientific process. > > I strongly disagree with this statement. A key part of a scientific

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

Manu Sporny wrote: By halting the XHTML2 work and announcing more resources for the HTML5 project, the World Wide Web Consortium has sent a clear signal on the future markup language for the Web: it will be HTML5. Unfortunately, the decision comes at a time when many working with Web standards ha

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Manu Sporny wrote: > By halting the XHTML2 work and announcing more resources for the HTML5 > project, the World Wide Web Consortium has sent a clear signal on the > future markup language for the Web: it will be HTML5. Unfortunately, the > decision comes at a time

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

On Thursday 2009-07-23 09:48 -0400, Manu Sporny wrote: > http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/a-new-way-forward/ I have a few thoughts on this document. The above document says: # The single greatest complaint heard from the standards community # concerning the development of HTML5 is that it has

[whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5

By halting the XHTML2 work and announcing more resources for the HTML5 project, the World Wide Web Consortium has sent a clear signal on the future markup language for the Web: it will be HTML5. Unfortunately, the decision comes at a time when many working with Web standards have taken issue with t