Re: <ruby>, etc. in HTML5

On Wed, 28 May 2008, Robert J Burns wrote:
> > 
> > As I said in my last e-mail, it has never been my intent to edit the 
> > draft merely to reflect majority opinion. It is my intent to write the 
> > spec in such a way that it addresses the needs of the Web user and Web 
> > authoring community at large in the best way possible.
> 
> If that is your intent, then you're failing miserably at achieving it.

That's quite possible. I'm doing my best, but I never claimed to be any 
good. I'm happy to step down if someone better can take my place.


> The draft appears to be simply edited at your own whim: bringing to bear 
> your own often misguided opinions.

As I noted earlier, the spec doesn't actually align with my opinions. For 
example, the spec allows xmlns="" attributes and /> syntax sugar in 
certain places, because the arguments in favour of those were stronger 
than the arguments against. However, personally I think both of those 
things are stupid, and I wish that I could find strong enough arguments to 
remove them.


> You frequently do not participate in the discussions of the WG because 
> you seem to think it is beneath you. I don't see how you can ever 
> achieve the goals and principles you laid out in your reply when you 
> behave in that way.

I think it's clear from the archives that I do in fact take part in the 
discussions:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008May/author.html


Note also that the HTMLWG is far from the only source of feedback for 
HTML5. If you only look at input from this working group then you might 
well think that I don't respond to feedback much or that I don't take 
discussions into account. I am also cc'ed on numerous bugs in public 
browser bug databases, I'm on dozens of other mailing lists, including the 
WHATWG mailing list, I have Google alerts set up to let me know about 
Usenet postings and blog postings with feedback on the spec, and so on. 
All of those sources are taken into account too. I also do research using 
Google's vast resources, much of which I can't report on for 
confidentiality reasons, which I also take into account. If you are only 
looking at the spec through the lens of the HTMLWG then indeed, you would 
not see the spec reflect the group's discussions.

Just look at the list of acknowledgements in the spec -- many if not most 
of those people aren't HTMLWG members.


> Also, you cannot simply limit the feedback you hear to “browser vendors” 
> narrowly defined. Perhaps you have no concern for the W3C priority of 
> constituencies either, but that ordered list goes: users, authors, 
> implementors (including among them a few browser vendors), spec writers. 
> You appear to be completely reversing that.

Users are the most important concern, with authors quickly following. 
However, browser vendors have the ultimate veto. There is no point 
speccing things that they disagree with, as they'll just ignore the spec 
and the users and authors will be in a far worse position overall.

Again, though, if I really am ignoring implementors as you claim, I really 
would like to hear names so that I can contact them directly. Are you just 
saying that to get a rise out of me, or are there really people whom I am 
ignoring?

If anyone I have ignored is reading this, please do not hesitate to get 
into contact with me, either on this list or directly.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'