[html4all.org] process issue: citing HTML5 draft

[Robert Burns]

Hi John,

That was a bcc. However, Phil's  earlier "open letter" had us in the  
CC. It hasn't registered on radar yet as far as I can tell. With all  
the work I'm doing on the wiki (if they find the wiki) they may think  
I'm the sole trouble maker. So please everyone throw some Molotov  
cocktails quick! :-)

Take care,
Rob

On Aug 23, 2007, at 12:56 PM, John Foliot wrote:

> Interesting thought just occurred.  Rob, is this (was this) blindly  
> cc'd to
> the html4all.org list, or is the subject line in the clear to Dan  
> and Chris?
> If it is the latter, then I guess we've just been "outed".  I have  
> no issue
> with this, but it does open up a new line of consideration...
>
> JF
>
>
>
> Robert Burns wrote:
>> Hi Dan and Chris,
>>
>>
>> On Aug 23, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I can see something to be concerned about... and if the HTML 5 spec
>>> were being passed off as a "W3C standard" or something, then yes,
>>> that would be something I would have to do something about.
>>>
>>> But as it is... this looks like people advocating their position
>>> strongly and using the current text as part of their argument. That
>>> seems like a good way to get feedback on the current draft.
>>
>> Well yes, that's what I'm complaining about. That they're using the
>> current draft as part of their argument. It's something I think is
>> irresponsible for the WG to allow its members to use an unstable
>> draft to bolster arguments or make announcements to the World  about
>> what HTML5 has proclaimed. On the one hand this misinformation goes
>> to the bug reporters and on the other hand, they're proclaiming it on
>> their blogs (as Philip Taylor's post points out). One confuses
>> implementors the other confuses authors. Should we start a third fork
>> to confuse users (keeping the priority of constituencies in
>> mind :-) )? I think this is going to be bad PR in general for HTML5.
>> That concerns me.
>>
>> On Aug 23, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>
>>> It's explicitly not circular:
>>>
>>>> "It's the dog (the implementations) wagging the tail (the spec),
>>>>  not vice versa." --
>>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=189643
>>
>> But Dan, a comment almost immediately preceding this  comment is:
>>
>> Lachlan Hunt  2007-08-20 21:50:26 PDT
>>> This bug should be marked invalid now. HTML5 now defines the usemap
>>> attribute as a Hashed ID Reference, not a URI, and can only
>>> reference maps within the same document.
>>
>> That doesn't sound like just an argument advocating one way or
>> another. That sounds to me like this WG has put together ad fairly
>> definitive draft that implementors should follow. This is a bit like
>> the boy who cries wolf. By the time we actually have a
>> recommendation, implementors may be fed up with this HTML5 says one
>> thing, now it says another.
>>
>> It also looks very explicitly circular. One WG member says the
>> implementation has to change due to the HTML5 recommendation. The
>> next WG member claims that HTML5 (the tail being wagged) is based on
>> the implementation (the dog). We therefore have an unstable draft
>> solidly based on an unstable implementation that is, in turn, based
>> on the unstable draft. Seems like a pretty tight circle to me. If
>> you're not concerned about the tight circle, that's fine, but I find
>> it odd to hear you say you don't see it.
>>
>> Take care,
>> Rob
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> list_html4all.org mailing list
>> https://www.html4all.org/wiki
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> list_html4all.org mailing list
> https://www.html4all.org/wiki