[whatwg] "due consideration"

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> <The point>
> I do not doubt of Ian's good faith, nor of his huge effort in making
> HTML5 the best possible thing it might be. However, I doubt of the
> sanity of having an individual to have the final say about any topic,

I don't doubt the sanity of it at all.

> even above expert groups that have been researched and discussed the
> topic for years.

That's that happen when no one has a final say: years of discussions.
Quite often—about the color of the bike shed.

> Just because the fruit of so long work can't be properly sintetized in
> plain-text e-mails doesn't mean that there is not enough value on it.
> Going back to the example, there was a lot of people involved in RDF
> and RDFa since 1997. That's already twelve years of continuous work
> and research by several people. HTML5 replaces all this effort (RDF
> and RDFa) with that of a single person over few months (Microdata).

I doubt that discussions started in 1997 with HTML5 in mind. So I
guess those interested can keep going for 12 more years if so
inclined.


> Honestly, I can't say for sure which method would be best for HTML;
> but I'm still convinced that having a single gatekeeper with absolute
> power over the next web standard is, at least, insane.

I'd say that's the one the best ways to get something practical done.
To quote Frederick P. Brooks Jr.:
"Conceptual integrity in turn dictates that the design must proceed
from one mind, or from a very small number of agreeing resonant
minds"
— "The Mythical Man Month", Chapter 4 "Aristocracy, Democracy and
System Design"


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/