On Feb 18, 6:44 pm, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote:

This statement seems to imply that improving the specification is an
all-or-nothing proposition when it comes to existing features. I do
not agree. To use a specific example, I don't plan on including a
"Rendering" section, as HTML5 does. I think getting consensus on the
Rendering section is an effort that matches the time scale you have
outlined for HTML5. I don't think this makes getting consensus and
publishing the parser, getElementsByClassName, <canvas>, etc, a
pointless exercise.

I recognize you might not agree, and I expect "getting consensus" is
more important to me than to you. But that's the W3C process, and this
disagreement is about magnitude, not direction. Overall, the goals are
close.

In my goal, I place a lot of value on "quickly". I favor cutting
things that are not critical to the Web if that improves the schedule--
with the caveat that some features and refinements must remain in the
document in order to prevent bad actors from slow-rolling the Working
Group, and the Web itself. To use a concrete example, the parsing
section is non-negotiable to me, but I would favor cutting XML/XHTML
entirely if it looks like I'm wasting a braincell on XHTML2
coordination. In other words, I would rather deliver an incomplete
deliverable on time, than a complete one very late.

- Rob