On Jun 1, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
OK, I will be more direct then.
I believe that you have mischaracterized people's requests. I do
not believe that you have done so intentionally, but nevertheless,
you have mischaracterized people's requests.
If you mean regarding the requests to make the wording of principles
more or less firm, I do not believe I have done so. I have gotten
requests of all the forms I cited. If you really want to be more
direct, please explain specifically how I have mischaracterized
people's requests.
From there, you say that you can't please everybody, and then
proceed not to convincing others, but stating what you prefer.
And then you complete this by changing the subject, away from Design
Principles, to a shared vocabulary.
And now you state that a shared vocabulary would reduce the
usefulness of the document.
I don't doubt that the existing document could be defended as Design
Principles. All I am asking is that you do so.
When I did so, it only seemed to result in more pointless discussion.
I have stated my view, which is that Design Principles for language
design do not have to be 100% absolute, that you cannot treat it as
black and white. I have also pointed out that some claims of Design
Principles being misapplied were simply wrong, which was met with
repetition of the same points.
Whether or not everyone agrees with them, these principles *have* been
used to develop HTML5, and a proposal that is wildly out of sync with
them is unlikely to see success. Indeed, they have occasionally been
used successfully to change the editor's mind about things.
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.
It seems that we are obligated to publish it as a Working Group
Note by the Process (something I wasn't aware of when the document
was first proposed for FPWD). Fortunately a Note doesn't have to
have consensus (other than consensus to stop work), so at some
point we can just stop discussion and publish.
I'll note that publish "something" does not necessarily mean publish
with a misleading abstract.
I'm not saying we should publish the current draft as-is.
If this is something upon which consensus can be obtained quickly,
I'm inclined to suggest that we find a mechanism by which this
discussion can be moved off to a separate mailing list that
focuses on the precise wording, and ask that the group that is
working on such report back here only on major events and
substantive changes.
Honestly, I think that may be more attention than the wording
deserves. Looking back on this 213-message thread(*), I don't see a
lot of increase in shared understanding, or concrete suggestions
for the document. I also see that you did not issue guidance to any
of the more frequent and repetitive posters on this thread, as you
sometimes do by way of moderation. I am not sure the thread would
have been more useful if it occurred on another mailing list,
especially if no one were there to moderate at all.
My previous note was not meant as an intent to moderate, but as a
suggestion. *This* note is meant as an intent to moderate.
If you insist that this document is useful as a set of Design
Principles, then feel free to defend that. To the extent that you
have declined to do so, it is understandable that people are asking
exactly what *is* your intent.
Who asked what exactly my intent is? I believe I missed that question.
Regards,
Maciej
