Hi Ian, It is with dismay that i read your recent comments [1] in regards to the HTML WG process and the content of the HTML5 spec.
In particular: <Hixie> MikeSmith: i no longer make any promises that the w3c spec says what it should [2] Does this mean that the HTML5 spec no longer reflects the consensus of the HTML WG or what you think it shoud say? <Hixie> (the net result being i don't bother anymore and the w3c copy of the spec is getting more and more crazy) Can you clarify what you don't bother about and how this leads to the spec becoming "more crazy"? is it because you are asked to provide evidence and data for your rationales when you reject a bug without it? <Hixie> i think the best part of the process right now is the way that it only kicks in if the editor disagrees with someone, but when that someone proposes an alternative, the editor has to do extra work to repeat the objection for it to be considered. I would suggest that if you as editor provided evidence to back up your rationale, rather than expecting people to accept your judgement without reasonable justification, then the escalation process would not be needed as much. [1] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120314#l-240 -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com | www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
