[html4all] WG Process

[Philip TAYLOR]

Laura Carlson wrote:

> Chaals wrote:
>> Ian's approach is basically that he thinks the browser makers are the
>> most critical part of the chain, because if they don't implement then
>> the spec is worthless anyway.
> 
> This would relate to the "Priority of Constituencies" design principle. It says:
> 
> "In case of conflict, consider users over authors over implementors
> over specifiers over theoretical purity. In other words costs or
> difficulties to the user should be given more weight than costs to
> authors; which in turn should be given more weight than costs to
> implementors; which should be given more weight than costs to authors
> of the spec itself, which should be given more weight than those
> proposing changes for theoretical reasons alone. Of course, it is
> preferred to make things better for multiple constituencies at once."
> [2]
> 
> Best Regards,
> Laura

> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies

The problem is (as I see it) that both "we" and "they"
cite the /Draft/ Design Principles as if they had
been agreed; they have not, and this is (IMHO) one
of the greatest weaknesses of the whole process.
We debate (some) aspects of the Draft Specification
without ever agreeing what our Design Principles
are.  As a result, there is no coherence, no common
goal, just an open forum in which each can cite the
"Design Principles" when it suits, and quietly ignore
them at other times ...  I would like a complete
moratorium on any discussion on the Draft Specification,
and in its place, a well-led debate (ultimately
leading to agreement) on each and every Design
Principle in turn (including "Design Principles"
that do not even appear as of today).

** Phil.