[whatwg] Re: [off-list] Status Update
jim.ley at gmail.com
Sun Mar 20 06:10:37 PST 2005
It's been over a month since this comment was raised, there's numerous
other comments gone un-responded too. Any chance of an update, or at
least some information that the various outstanding WF2 issues are
It might be nice to see a complete spec so we can have a call for
implementations - It would be nice if we could have a spec to
implement against before IE7 is released, so the developers there have
to something to work against...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:45:41 +0000, Jim Ley <jim.ley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:00:04 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Jim Ley wrote:
> > > As you're months behind by your own admission, maybe it would be a good
> > > idea if some of the other members of the working group started actually
> > > responding to issues too.
> > More people responding would not make things go faster.
> Of course it does, one of the continual problems on this is your
> (comparitively) limited experience of script, therefore it takes
> people a long time to explain to you why your "it's all solved with
> script" is simply not true. If the issue is addressed and resolved by
> someone with lots of script experience those delays simply would not
> >The problem with
> > many W3C committees that I'm directly familiar with is in fact that there
> > are too many people responding to issues, not too few.
> So you would say that 1 and just 1 person is the appropriate number
> (no other member of the WHAT-WG has responded to an issue that you've
> not also responded too) I'm afraid I cannot agree with that, and
> whilst I would agree that lots of people is bad the sweet spot is not
> 1. What's the point of all the other members if they don't do
> anything - I find it difficult to believe they're even reading the
> > > are the other members not really interested in contributing to this
> > > work?
> > While it may not be in the form of heavy volume posting to the WHATWG
> > list, I can assure you that the other members are doing their part.
> Rather than "assure me" could you point to some concrete things that
> they're doing? They're not responding to issues, they're providing
> text, they're not providing input, what exactly is their part? Simply
> trying to give this body some credibility by lending their names to
> it? If that is the case then yes, I guess they are "doing their part"
> but I'd like to see that made clear.
> > I don't recall speed ever being an issue that was raised related to doing
> > the WF2 and WA1 work in the WHATWG instead of the W3C. The W3C is not
> > necessarily slow.
> I certainly recall speed being one of the main motivators, and urls like
> http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=4816 "many feel that
> formal standards bodies move too slowly " reflect that.
> > The WF2 spec is basically done. Implementation work has started.
> What? before a "call for implementation", that's scary, I understood
> you'd previously argued that this was a bad thing? The spec is
> clearly not finished, there are big unresolved issues (particularly
> the date fallback and icomplex type proposals)
More information about the whatwg