- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:07:35 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
- Cc: 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Justin James wrote: > > Wasn't one of your major objections to the ARIA proposal the lack of > transparency in their process? No, I said: > > 1. ARIA isn't being developed in the open. It is unlikely that we would > > adopt wholesale anything that wasn't developed in a completely open > > manner, with open public participation and a completely public > > feedback loop. Open participation with an open feedback loop doesn't require that the editors write down every fleeting thought they have about their spec. In any case, I was reassured that the ARIA spec _is_ being written and designd in the open. (Although sadly my subsequent question went unanswered, so I don't know if there is a public issues list also. [1]) [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jul/0323.html > I think that the group would appreciate an explanation that helps us to > understand why the base assumptions of HTML 5 can be "considered > carefully" but "not documented", but we won't work with another group > that is transparent? The "base assumptions" of HTML5 are widely documented, e.g. in the aforementioned whitepaper, in the "design principles" document, etc. It's just the pros and cons of proposals and their variants that often ends up underdocumented. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 21:08:47 UTC