On 06/26/2010 12:29 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
On 06/25/2010 08:55 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
The short form is that a proposal made by Lachlan Hunt was adopted
by the W3C WG based on a Call for Consensus, and this resulted in a
widening of the divergence between the WHATWG and W3C drafts.
Could you explain what is wrong with the example in the WHATWG draft
that you would like removed?
Lachlan's change proposal adequately described what was wrong with the
example.
Here is Lachlan's rationale:
| The current spec providedes an unrealistic example designed to
| discourage the use of plugins due to their proprietary nature. While
| encouraging the use of vendor-neutral technologies over proprietary
| technologies is a noble goal, the example would better serve web
| developers by demonstrating how plugins can be used without being
| detrimental to those without the plugin installed.
-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1107.html
This was written in the context of a section of the spec having a single
example showing how to use<param>. In the WHATWG spec, that section now
has two examples. It has one that demonstrates "how plugins can be used
without being detrimental to those without the plugin installed", as
Lachlan suggests. It also has one "encouraging the use of vendor-neutral
technologies over proprietary technologies", which Lachlan describes as a
noble goal. This as far as I can tell means that the rationale Lachlan
describes simple does not apply to the current text in the WHATWG spec.
Therefore the rationale is not valid for what you are asking. This is
unsurprising, since it was written by someone who was not attempting to
apply it to the purpose to which you are applying it.
What is _your_ rationale for asking for this example to be removed?
I provided three options, and listed my order of preference.
I explained why the first option is not currently being followed. For the
second option, I presented all the information of which I was aware, and
explained that I had no interest in consuming HTML WG time on this issue.
For the third option, I explained that what you were requesting was
already present in the specification, and that your requested modification
would not be appropriate. I have expanded on my response to the first
point above, and to the third point below.
You misinterpret the third option, which I will repeat here:
(3) that the differences listed in the WHATWG draft be updated in two ways:
(a) to describe why the WHATWG felt it necessary to diverge in this
particular case
(b) to modify the description of the W3C position to be based on the
reasons given in Lachlan's proposal
This is referring to the following description of the difference:
A politically-incorrect example regarding plugins is not present in
the W3C version due to the W3C HTML working group not wanting the
examples to be quite so brutally honest, as documented in this working
group decision from June 2010.
This text does not describe either why the WHATWG felt it necessary to
diverge in this particular case, nor does it accurately reflect the
rationale as present in Lachlan's proposal.
I also provided a fourth option, which I quote here:
| Since this is only an example, I really don't mind if the W3C version
| diverges on this issue if the HTML working group feels it's especially
| important an issue, which is why I did not object in the HTML WG beyond
| rejecting the bug. (It would be like objecting over the differences in
| the style sheets, which are also different.)
This is not a fourth option. This is an example of text that could be
used to partially address 3a.
However, if there is no
| good technical reason to remove the example, and if objecting to the
| decision would provide a way for the specifications to merge by having
| the example added back to the W3C version, I would be happy to do so.
| Please let me know if that is an option.
You did not comment on this, so let me more direct: is this an option?
I will confirm that appeal of a chair's decision, per
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGAppeals, is
an option.
If the example is to be retained, and this is done without presenting
any new information that would merit reopening the decision, then my
request is that the differences indicated why the WHATWG felt it
necessary to diverge, and that the description reflect the rationale
provided by Lachlan.
The rationale provided by Lachlan is clearly not the real reason, since
the rationale provided by Lachlan does not apply to the current state of
the WHATWG spec. Stating that reason would therefore be absurd. The real
reason is that certain members of the HTML WG wouldn't agree to having an
example that was critical of plugins. That's the reason that is described
in the spec today. If you do not believe that to be the real reason, then
I challenge you to convince the HTML WG to accept having _both_ examples
in the HTML WG spec, since having both examples satisfies Lachlan's
rationale better than having just the one currently in the HTML WG spec.
The following changes were made:
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/004269.html
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/004270.html
These changes were made in response to the following request:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0562.html
Which in turn refers to the following proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1107.html
Lachlan's proposal clearly states that the text provided is to be used
as a replacment.
My subsequent request is very specific: either apply Lachlan's change in
a way that does not cause the documents to diverge, present new
information to cause the decision to reopen, or document the reason why
the WHATWG felt it necessary to diverge in this particular case, and to
modify the description of the W3C position to be based on the reasons
given in Lachlan's proposal.
As you point out, there is a fourth option: appeal the chair's decision.
I make this request to the entire set of WHATWG members:
http://www.whatwg.org/charter#member
- Sam Ruby
