Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:52:12 +0100, Dean Edridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I have nothing at all against Mike being "pro-active" and putting
some thing together and publishing it, it's only the fact that it's
been published at, and endorsed by the W3C that bothers me, it's
pretty hard to argue against such a spec when it has already been
published and people have accepted that it's here for good.
In what way has it been published and endorsed by the W3C?
I think I've already explained that, I think we are just going to see
this differently.
To me and I'm sure a lot of other people, the spec looks like published
work:
www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/
http://www.webdirections.org/blog/html5-markup-language-first-draft-published/
http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/11/html_5_the_markup.html
For wrong or for right, this is how I see it:
"it's pretty hard to argue against such a spec when it has already been
published and people have accepted that it's here for good."
It certainly does not look to be published and endorsed more than say
when I first drafted the html5-diff document, on which the HTML WG had
not made any decisions at that time either.
I don't see how that matters, perhaps there was an error in that process
too.
I guess you could say that I have a problem with this particular part of
the W3C process. Believe it or not I went out of my way to not make this
look like an offensive criticism of Mike, that was the last thing I
wanted to do, if it's come across that way I'll be happy to discuss it
with him.
(I'm not sure I agree with that the document should define things in a
normative way,
I agree.
but I have a hard time seeing how anything Mike did here is wrong.)
It wasn't supposed to be a case of "Mike being wrong", more of a case of
me disagreeing with the process. I did try to put my concerns across
without criticising Mike personally.
--
Dean Edridge
