On May 24, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:
(not sent to the list)
With regard to "what the document itself is named", could you
please clarify:
Is it your position that discussion of the title is out of scope
and not "something that needs to be resolved"? That what the
document is named is settled and should not be a discussion
topic?
Or that the current title is perfect, and that no other
title will do?
My position is as follows:
1) The main title "HTML 5" is a settled issue.
2) The wording of the subtitle is not a very important issue. I
wouldn't characterize it as one of the top things that needs to be
settled.
3) I would personally be inclined to leave the subtitle to editor's
discretion unless there is a major problem with it.
4) I don't think the subtitle is perfect, but I think it's good
enough, and attempting to perfect it would be a bikeshed exercise.
Are you willing to suggest other titles that might be more
acceptable to the group, if my suggestions don't meet your
approval?
That would depend on how many object, and the concrete nature of their
objections. I think your objections (that it's not a "Technical
Specification" or "a traditional language spec") are ill-founded and
even if true would not make the current subtitle inappropriate, since
the document is not in fact called "HTML 5: A traditional language
spec and Technical Specification (as defined by the IETF)". Nor do I
think the use of "must" instead of "is" (i.e. stating conformance
requirements using RFC2119 keywords) makes the spec somehow limited in
scope to browsers or "HTML interpreters".
=======================
The agenda for the May 21 meeting of the HTML working group[0]
included a proposed "Process for Proposals"[1], which said,
among other things:
3) The issue about what the document itself is named (raised by Roy
Fielding[2]) is also something that needs to be resolved.
Discussing [2], I suggested some reasons why one might prefer one
title over another, factors affecting the title of this document,
suggested an alternative title, and gave an example of a document
that might be more consistent with the current title.
In reply, I was told that while I was entitled to express
my opinion, I wasn't entitled to have that opinion "expressed
in the document title"[3] (i.e., that the opinion had no
standing?), that suggesting the title was inappropriate
was a personal affront, that the title had already been decided
by a working group vote, and so forth.
Your title suggestion seemed designed to deprecate the spec or limit
its scope of applicability. When you make claims such as that the
document is not a "Technical Specification", it further serves to
demonstrate your negative outlook on the spec.
[0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0174.html
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0161.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0430.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0237.html
Is this or is this not a topic that "needs to be resolved"?
Personally, I don't think it needs to be resolved.
Regards,
Maciej
