|
<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.
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.
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.
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!
Another
reason is "because it would harm the quality of the resulting
recommendation" - obviously absurd, or maybe "it would slow things
down too much"
It's very difficult to get 16 people to
agree, yet alone a whole mailing list
Frank Boumphrey (Speaking for
myself)
| 