On 06/10/2010 07:53 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
-public-html
+www-archive, +Maciej
Taking this off-list because it's turning into a process discussion that
doesn't belong on public-html.
On 2010-06-09 03:48, Sam Ruby wrote:
To have the W3C specification refer readers to another specification for
an exact list of differences, and to have that other specification
indicate that the omission was due to political reasons is intolerable.
To have the HTMLWG degrade into nothing but a massive political debate,
where decisions are made based on "proposals that create the weakest
objections" — where you have demonstrated time and time again that that
simply means the loudest group wins [1] — is intolerable.
If loudness were the criteria, then microdata would not have been split out.
[snip]
[1] This has been the case with Microdata, which was split out simply to
appease the RDFa proponents with technically weak arguments about
fairness and "creating a level playing field". And it was the case here
with the statement about image analysis heuristics, where you clearly
just went with the most vocal group, rather than the most technically
sound argument; or at the very least finding a compromise solution that
involved rephrasing it to clarify the meaning, as I previously suggested.
It would be helpful if you were to actually read the decisions.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/att-0218/issue-76-decision.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0001.html
- Sam Ruby
