Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
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?
I do *NOT* like the characterization of "playing games". Please stop that.
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.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0430.html
Roy stated that the title was "misleading", and continued with the
observation that it contains sections which "reinterpret HTTP".
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.
The issue is not with the <h1>. Removing the subtitle would not address
the issue.
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.
Stop that. Now. I do not know how to say that any more clearly. This
behavior is unacceptable.
(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.)
The current draft contains content sniffing for feeds. If accurately
describes uniform browser behavior. It reinterprets HTTP. It is not
part of a vocabulary. It is not part of associated API.
If it weren't contentious, it wouldn't be an issue. It is contentious.
One way to address it is to remove the section. Another is to label
it properly.
Removing accurate, but incomplete, labels does not address the issue.
Regards,
Maciej
- Sam Ruby
