On May 25, 2009, at 4:45 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2009 13:09:10 +0200, Sam Ruby <[email protected]>
wrote:
Another way to address this is to describe this document in terms
that nobody can question. "Unform Browser Behavior" is one such
way. Perhaps there are better ways of addressing this, but I doubt
there are any that are more concise.
You say "nobody", but Maciej and Ian are questioning that title. (And
I question it too given that HTML5 covers much more than browser
behavior.)
I was unclear. It is my believe that the document, once completed,
will
describe a behavior that is uniform across a number of popular
browsers,
and that few, if any, will doubt that.
Does anyone doubt that the document is in fact about "A Vocabulary and
Associated APIs"?
Clearly there isn't yet consensus on that as a title, or on removing
the contradictions with other specifications.
If you think there are contradictions that are problematic, should
they not be addressed as technical issues in their own right, rather
than playing games around with the title?
Note that neither Roy nor Larry suggested that "contradictions with
other specifications" was a reason to change the title. Rather, they
do not like the things the spec specifies or the manner in which it
does so. The argument that the title should be changed because there
are contradictions with other specifications was, I believe, first
presented in your emails just now. At first glance, it does not seem
to me that changing the title would make such contradictions any more
or less of a problem, so I'm not sure why you are making this argument.
Hopefully over the upcoming months we can make progress on one or
both fronts.
We did in fact have a group decision that the title should be "HTML5".
And there were no Formal Objections. Not even Roy's after-the-fact
objection was a Formal Objection. Thus, as far as I can tell, we have
satisfied the W3C criteria for consensus on the title. I'm not sure
why you think it is helpful as chair to reopen an issue where we
already had consensus. Would you like to personally lodge a Formal
Objection to the title, based on the spec contradicting other
specifications? Or perhaps it is the subtitle where you think we lack
consensus, in which case the controversy would easily be resolved by
removing it.
If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were just looking for a
pressure point to push for other changes to the spec.
(I'll note that I have no idea which contradictions you are concerned
with, perhaps you can point me to the relevant issues in the issue
tracker or bugzilla.)
Regards,
Maciej
