This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
>>>>> The HTML5 draft reflects an effort, started in 2004, to study >>>>> contemporary HTML implementations and deployed content. >>>> >>>> Where is this study published? What methodology was used to gather the >>>> results and draw conclusions? Where is the data available? >>> >>> To study something does not mean something was published: >>> >>> http://www.answers.com/study >> >> Thanks for the link. That is true that publishing is not a >> requirement, but then how did the working group communicate its >> motivations for getting this work forward? To imply a "study" was >> conducted also implies that the results of that study were >> communicated to the community and that the community agreed that >> something was needed. >> >> If you can't produce evidence of who conducted the study and how the >> results of that study were communicated to the community, then you >> must remove this section. >> >> If it helps jog your memory, studies where done like this one: >> http://code.google.com/webstats/, which has evidently [1] underpinned >> some of decisions made by the editor of HTML5 - and shared within the >> community to sway opinion. Please reference it as at least one study. >> >> [1] "http://code.google.com/webstats/" site:http://w3.org/ >> >> The reason it must be listed is that, as I mentioned above, people >> should be able to ascertain the historical decisions that lead to the >> creation of HTML5. People should also be able to scrutinize the >> methodology and results that was used in the study (particularly the >> one above, even if it only played a small role in the overall effort). > > It is a single sentence explaining something. Of course I know about > /webstats/ and the tens (if not hundreds) of issues I reported with > HTML5 over the course of five years with respect to it matching or not > matching contemporary implementations. But this is a single sentence and > making more out of it is not worth it. The /webstats/ document will be > around for a long time, W3C Bugzilla will be around as long as the /TR/ > pages most likely, and the HTML and WHATWG mailing list archives > probably too. Tons of research can be done on our research. The paragraph above is exactly what I what I want to see in the document :)
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: Agreed with reporter in private email to close this bug.