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
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:06 PM, John Foliot jfol...@stanford.edu 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
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
Peter Kasting wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:06 PM, John Foliot jfol...@stanford.edu
mailto:jfol...@stanford.edu 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
Michael Enright wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Manu Spornymspo...@digitalbazaar.com 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
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Manu Sporny mspo...@digitalbazaar.comwrote:
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
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
Peter Kasting wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Manu Sporny mspo...@digitalbazaar.com
mailto:mspo...@digitalbazaar.com wrote:
If people sending emails containing proposals, and having the editor
directly respond to all of those emails, frequently by changing the
spec,
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 submitted
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
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com 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
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 period on
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 now
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
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
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
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Manu Spornymspo...@digitalbazaar.com 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
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
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
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Manu Sporny mspo...@digitalbazaar.comwrote:
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
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Manu Spornymspo...@digitalbazaar.com 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
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
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
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 useful once we're
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
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 exceedingly
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,
etc.
27 matches
Mail list logo
