Rob Sayre wrote:
On 6/1/09 1:23 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Rob Sayre wrote:
On 6/1/09 7:01 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
From my point of view, a push to publish a Design Principles
document as a formal W3C Note is a distraction. To be clear, I am
not saying that the Design Principles document itself isn't useful
and interesting, but the effort to publish it as a Note means that
the details of the wording is something that must be discussed.
There seem to be group members laboring under the assumption that the
Design Principles document does not apply to their suggestions or
objections.
It is a common debating technique to make grandiose claims without
specifics.
That claim is neither grandiose or vague. I could cite instances of this
behavior, but singling out individuals seems unproductive.
Now: what was your point?
That arguing against the document is fruitless procedural stalling.
There are plenty of other working groups where one can work on standards
that will never appear in a browser.
When the document comes up in argument, there is a possibility that the
person citing the document as support is "wrapping themselves in the
flag", but that is relatively easy to spot. If the document has been
cited correctly, then the group really breaks down: I have seen claims
that we should restart it from scratch, and claims that it's all a bunch
of wishy-washy rubbish, but mostly I see claims that the document
doesn't apply to everyone in the group.
The requirement to provide citations is intended to ensure that the
original input is not mischaracterized. I believe that the above
contains a number of such mischaracterizations, but I can't say for
sure, as you continue to decline to provide citations.
Publishing the document is a useful way to record consensus (...which is
not unanimity).
I believe what we are waiting on is a draft that the author of said
draft feels is ready.
- Rob
- Sam Ruby
