Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
If it turns out that this is one of only a few things that need to
change to dramatically increase the level of consensus from certain
quarters, then it's certainly an area that will change. On the other
hand, if the people objecting to this section also object to most of
the rest of the document, then changing it wouldn't gain us much. Does
that make sense?
Regarding the question in the last paragraph: not to me.
Ok, let me rephrase it. When there are topics where different parties in
the working group have radically different mostly incompatible positions
where the distinction is a philosophical one and not one that can be
resolved by reference to data or logical argument, as is the case with
some of the controversy in the introduction sections, I think it is
reasonable to expect each party to compromise on some of their desires if
parties compromise in comparable amounts.
I do _not_ think it would be reasonable for one party, for example Larry,
to compromise on every issue, with another party "winning" every
controversial argument.
I similarly do not think it would be reasonable for two parties to
compromise on something if doing so wouldn't actually improve the position
of the working group. To give an extreme: if someone has the position that
some particular controversial text should be added _and_ that the entire
approach taken by HTML5 is wrong, and they will formally object if either
of these positions fails to be attained (i.e. they refuse to compromise on
either), then it doesn't make sense for someone with the opposing views to
accept the controversial text but refuse to change the approach, since the
net result would be that neither party would be happy.
Does _that_ make sense?
You must have some history with Larry that I'm unaware of, and frankly
the above is at odds with my previous understanding of how you operate
(which I would have characterized as "fact based" rather than the more
horse-trading approach I see described above). This will take time for
me to digest.
The approach of just ducking controversy doesn't improve
accessibility.
Time out. If I felt the "no consensus, no code" approach was viable in
anything approximating a reasonable timeframe, we wouldn't be having
this discussion. We are exploring a potential "next step", not a "final
destination".
I don't understand. By W3C process, we're not supposed to have any
remaining issues at last call -- that is, the spec is supposed to as close
to the final destination as we can make it. How are we not exploring a
final destination?
Since you clearly are not an idiot, I must be expressing myself rather
poorly.
I don't believe that the next release of HTML will be the last release
of HTML. This is true whether it be called 4.1 or 4.5 or 5. I suspect
it will be externally called 5 but with a feature set that you would be
more comfortable calling 4.1. I don't want to rathole on naming.
Anyway, what I'm hearing from you is that what I should do is continue to
respond to feedback, naturally including things like Larry's feedback,
with the intention to be down to zero issues before we want to publish.
What I am unclear on is how we are to proceed beyond that point with
issues where none of the parties are willing to compromise, assuming we
have some, since it seems unlikely that we won't. It's also unclear to me
how I can find out what that list would be. Is the list of OPEN issues a
list of unresolved issues where no compromise has yet been reached? Would
it help if, at some future point before October, I started going down this
list and tried to drive them to resolution myself? Or are we expecting
this list to have zero items on it by then?
I guess my question boils down to asking about what your expected
timetable is for these controversial issues.
Given the rate of change, the inattention to heartbeat requirements, and
the rather widespread perception that this group is not exactly open to
input, I believe that this document has not gotten the attention it
deserves. Only after these items have been resolved will we start
hearing about the real issues.
Until we collect that list, I can't make definitive statements; but I
can approach the problem from the other direction, and list what items
do not cause me undo concern.
I'm not concerned about items that were present in HTML4 that continue
to be present in HTML5. I'm not concerned about items explicitly in
scope. I'm comfortable that canvas will not be an issue and believe I
will be in a position to assess how to close that next month.
I don't see any individual item beyond that which -- in isolation --
could not be addressed by October.
- Sam Ruby
