Steven Faulkner wrote:
sam ruby wrote:
"3) Manu has indicated a willingness to work with Laura, John, and Steve.
For all I know that willingness may not be reciprocated, or may not
work out. In fact, every indication I have seen is that Laura and John
would rather work on a process document than the spec itself. If that
is indeed what they wish to work on, then I will support them as I have
supported Manu - separately."
I would be more than happy to work with Manu, which I have indicated to
him offlist already.
Excellent!
I am still unsure whether collaboration is actually useful in terms of
the current procedural regime:
If i write a spec that only has changes to the alt section i would think
it more likely to gain support, than if it also included RDFa, thus i am
discouraged from collaboration.
I consider a much fairer and more manageable way to handle it would be
to allow people to write modified sections or subsection and then put
each section up to a vote if consensus cannot be achieved.
if there is not a section or subsection that has a draft alternative has
been produced and there are no formal objections realted to it, then it
can be considered as having consensus and be left in the draft for last
call.
example:
a vote on 3 choices
ians image section
steves image section
person x's image section
which ever gains the most support is the one that goes into the FPWD for
last call.
another example:
manus RDFa section
ian's microdata section
both microdate and RDFa
which ever gains the most support is the one that goes into the FPWD for
last call.
then we could end up with a document that is the product of the W3C HTML
working group.
If that's how people want to proceed, I'm OK with that, with but one
minor reservation... ultimately there will need to to be somebody who is
willing and able to do the necessary integration. I gather that Manu is
willing to do that up to a point, but it would not surprise me if he
became considerably less enthusiastic about investing the time if (for
example) RDFa wasn't included.
I wouldn't worry too much about it at this point. If people want a
vote, there will be a vote. Even my opinion doesn't count for all that
much: for example, I would prefer a vote on a document that contains
tangible spec text for the table element including a summary element,
but people who are preparing the text of the vote apparently want
something else. If people agree to what they prepare, we will go with that.
--
with regards
Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium
www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> | www.wat-c.org
<http://www.wat-c.org>
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
- Sam Ruby
