Re xml-dev Digest V1 #348

[Frank Boumphrey]

<Oren Ben-Kiki>
It seems as though you seriously suggest that the lack of documentation of
the technical process of creating the spec (specifically, the issues, the
alternatives, and the rationale for the adopted solutions) is "OK" since one
can simple E-mail some WG member and ask him to explain it for you. After
all, it works so well for you!

    </Oren Ben-Kiki>


There is usually a requirements document, followed by several public working drafts working drafts, followed by a propoaed recommendation, followed by a recommendation.

Public input is invited at every stage of this process.


<Oren Ben-Kiki>

At any rate, I don't have the E-mail addresses of the XHTML WG members. I
can't officially get these addresses AFAIK.

</Oren Ben-Kiki>

The addresses of the editors are usually on the document.

<Oren Ben-Kiki>
 Even if I could, it would not be
practical for them to answer my questions - because they'd be swamped with
the questions of every other interested reader of the draft.

</Oren Ben-Kiki>

I have never failed to get a response when I've written, and the times any one has called me, I have always replied.
<Oren Ben-Kiki>
did somehow manage convey the rationale to all people writing to them, and I
wouldn't agree with the rationale for some specific decision, I could not go
to "another" discussion list - because there typically isn't one, or if
there is it is as full of complaints about the W3C process as this one is.

</Oren Ben-Kiki>
try the W3c html list.

And yes, this mailing list _is_ about "my beefs with every (XML related) W3C
spec", between other XML related things, unless someone creates a more
appropriate list for the purpose. If you are aware of one, I'd appreciate
the address.

The more this thread continues, the more I'm getting convinced there's
something wrong with the W3C.

<Oren Ben-Kiki>
 Obviously there is a reason why proper process
documentation is not being provided. The problem is that the simplest reason
is "to hide any shady politics between member companies". 

</Oren Ben-Kiki>

I think you've been reading too many conspiracy novels!:>)

The w3c works by consensus!,

The documentation that is not publically available is for the most part not worth reading! Many of the internal mailing lists make this list look like the embodiment of decorum and lucidity!

<Oren Ben-Kiki>
Another reason is
"because it would harm the quality of the resulting recommendation" -
obviously absurd, or maybe "it would slow things down too much" 
</Oren Ben-Kiki>

It's very difficult to get  16 people to agree, yet alone a whole mailing list

    Frank Boumphrey (Speaking for myself)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ic.ac.uk/pipermail/xml-dev/attachments/19990920/7f691926/attachment.htm