Hi Ian,
On May 28, 2008, at 8:58 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Robert J Burns wrote:
As I said in my last e-mail, it has never been my intent to edit the
draft merely to reflect majority opinion. It is my intent to write
the
spec in such a way that it addresses the needs of the Web user and
Web
authoring community at large in the best way possible.
If that is your intent, then you're failing miserably at achieving
it.
That's quite possible. I'm doing my best, but I never claimed to be
any
good. I'm happy to step down if someone better can take my place.
You keep lowering the bar in this conversation. It started out that
you weren't going to compromise your principles for the W3C’s
principles and now you're saying you're no good at adhering to any
principles at all. We need you to make a real effort at adhering to at
least your own principles. If you don't understand an issue, don't
dismiss it, but rather ask questions. Do not be embarrassed to ask
questions.
The draft appears to be simply edited at your own whim: bringing to
bear
your own often misguided opinions.
As I noted earlier, the spec doesn't actually align with my
opinions. For
example, the spec allows xmlns="" attributes and /> syntax sugar in
certain places, because the arguments in favour of those were stronger
than the arguments against. However, personally I think both of those
things are stupid, and I wish that I could find strong enough
arguments to
remove them.
I really don't know what that means. To me you sound like you're
saying that you don't use your own judgement when editing the draft.
so In the case of xmlns the draft now reflects a state against your
own better judgement. On the other hand if you weren't using your
judgement to edit the draft what could you possibly being doing
editing the draft?
Again, we need an editor who uses his judgment in editing the draft.
However, we need that judgment to be informed by the opinions of
others in the WG. Your job is not to come up with one-line zingers to
shoot down other’s proposals (like calling xmlns a talisman). Rather
your job is to understand the issues WG members raise so that the
draft can be improved.
You frequently do not participate in the discussions of the WG
because
you seem to think it is beneath you. I don't see how you can ever
achieve the goals and principles you laid out in your reply when you
behave in that way.
I think it's clear from the archives that I do in fact take part in
the
discussions:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008May/author.html
You certainly do post to the list, but that's not the same thing as
engaging in WG deliberations. Time and time again I've seen you post
things to the list and on IRC that demonstrates you don't understand
the issues involved. However, rather than asking questions to better
understand the issues you simply ignore what you don't understand.
Note also that the HTMLWG is far from the only source of feedback for
HTML5. If you only look at input from this working group then you
might
well think that I don't respond to feedback much or that I don't take
discussions into account. I am also cc'ed on numerous bugs in public
browser bug databases, I'm on dozens of other mailing lists,
including the
WHATWG mailing list, I have Google alerts set up to let me know about
Usenet postings and blog postings with feedback on the spec, and so
on.
All of those sources are taken into account too. I also do research
using
Google's vast resources, much of which I can't report on for
confidentiality reasons, which I also take into account. If you are
only
looking at the spec through the lens of the HTMLWG then indeed, you
would
not see the spec reflect the group's discussions.
Yes, I think perhaps you're trying to do too much here. Focus mostly
on the views of the WG and you'll be able to achieve both the W3C
principles and your own admittedly failed aspirations for your own
principles.
Just look at the list of acknowledgements in the spec -- many if not
most
of those people aren't HTMLWG members.
Also, you cannot simply limit the feedback you hear to “browser
vendors”
narrowly defined. Perhaps you have no concern for the W3C priority of
constituencies either, but that ordered list goes: users, authors,
implementors (including among them a few browser vendors), spec
writers.
You appear to be completely reversing that.
Users are the most important concern, with authors quickly following.
However, browser vendors have the ultimate veto. There is no point
speccing things that they disagree with, as they'll just ignore the
spec
and the users and authors will be in a far worse position overall.
I think you overestimate the eagerness of browser vendors to veto the
needs of users and authors. Most of the proposals and deliberations
that have taken place on the list are not at all burdensome on browser
developers. Some of those proposals place no burden on browser
developers at all (proposals targeting other UAs or taking advantage
of features already implemented).
Again, though, if I really am ignoring implementors as you claim, I
really
would like to hear names so that I can contact them directly. Are
you just
saying that to get a rise out of me, or are there really people whom
I am
ignoring?
It's not for me to say for others. I will say I feel like most of the
threads I have participated in have been misunderstood and frequently
ignored by you. I come to this WG wearing many hats — including an
implementor. So you can add me to the list you're looking to keep of
those implementors you are ignoring. Am I an important implementor?
Certainly not at the moment (if ever). But that only gets us back to
your preferred language that you're not ignoring major browser vendors
(though you may be ignoring the needs of many WG members, other
implementors, authors and users).
Take care,
Rob
