Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Aug 13, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
What makes you think I haven't been doing any kind of edits, to match
any of the criticisms I've made[1]. I don't whip things out
half-assed. I won't put anything online until I know I've gone
through it and made sure all the i's are dotted, the t's crossed. It
doesn't have to be bullet proof, but I would hope it could withstand
at least a little shaking.
I have no way of knowing the content of your private edits. For edits
to be relevant for the group to consider, we have to see it. If you'd
like to post something, I'd be glad to provide technical review.
I wrote this specifically to note that I'm aware that people would like
to see me produce spec text, but that I'm slowish in writing it, and I
fit it around my work. No other reason than acknowledge that I'm aware
people are expecting to see something from me.
I realize that others may be faster, and that's cool. I admire people
who can put together a spec document quick as an eye blink. I can't.
So don't assume because I haven't whipped anything out that I'm not
making edits to the copy of the HTML 5 document I downloaded.
Frankly, I'm not so sanguine about the whole "create alternative spec
text and submit it for discussion", as others seem to be. I'll wait
and see what happens with Manu's spec text, but how the third poll
question is worded seems to make it especially difficult for Manu's
work to succeed. I'm assuming the same fate rests with other efforts,
too. But that's just me, others could be more positive about the
approach.
I think breaking out portions of the spec where Ian agrees in
principle with the split has a decent track record. XMLHttpRequest,
MIMESNIFF, WEBADDRESS/IRIbis, WebSocket, Web Storage and Web Database
have all been successfully split out, the last three by Hixie himself.
That being said, it's a lot of work and a big ongoing time commitment
to edit a breakout spec. I know because I tried once and failed. I
made a split out Window Object spec which fell way behind and which I
had to abandon.
I
This to me represents a fundamental difference between us. I don't
believe it sould be up to Ian to get "permission" to do anything with
this specification. I also think it's abysmal that the W3C would allow
itself to get into a position where one person determines the course of
a specification underlying the future of the web.
I'm also aware that there is a significant amount of work with this
effort, re: my note that began this email.
But this isn't about me, or about who is tweaking the text. People
have expressed interest in being involved in this effort. I want to
see if this interest still exists. If not, then I won't bring up this
issue again to this group. I will still do the edits, because I want
to show what my changes would look like, for my own sense of
accomplishment. I won't dump them on the group, though. Frankly, I'll
most likely just quit, and do my own thing in my own space. I have a
couple of raised issues, but I have no concerns that one at least
will find a new owner (Issue 76). And chances are, no one is
interested in the other (Issue 77), anyway, and it can just be closed.
Threatening to quit (for the umpteenth time) is not constructive and
not a good use of the group's time. I know this mailing list can be
tense at times, but no one is attacking you here. I believe the
majority of the group is totally open to RenderContext2D and the
related interfaces being split into a separate spec, if an editor
steps up. No one is stopping you from becoming that person.
Rather than this be a threat, this is my way of telling the group,
reassuring the group, that I was not going to continue to bring this
issue up. You must have read *my sentence following the one that seemed
to trigger your anger. Note my earlier emails on this topic, when I
asked for direction on how to handle this, because I was trying to find
a way to make a proposal, to specify a concern, without someone in the
group getting on my case, and being treated with hostility.
I've decided it is impossible.
As for being a "quitter" I never wanted to be part of this group. I
joined only with great reluctance, and only because I thought I could
help improve the HTML 5 specification. Evidently, that is also impossible.
Regards,
Maciej
*Believe it or not, I have no interest in wasting the group's time.
Shelley
[1] http://realtech.burningbird.net/html5-story-progress
Shelley
