2007/6/28, Doug Schepers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Decisions get made all the time without informing the public list. The decision to create this spec in the first place was not a public decision. Most of the wording and functionality of the spec was the work of a small group of people. Only when an issue is raised does the debate start.
Ok, thanks so that means it is normal to not inform people about decisions on the mailing list, right?
> The issue was voted upon, there was an outcome. No, there was no vote. I was in the room, so I think I would know. The names that were chosen by the group were selected by group process of elimination, not by voting.
Whoops! I didn't know that. Sorry, I misunderstood. I'm still not really too fond with the way this was handled, but I was under the impression that this was something that was voted upon. Sorry guys, I owe you, Lachlan and Charles (and probably more people) an apology...
As it says in the process document [1], "A group should only conduct a vote to resolve a substantive issue after the Chair has determined that all available means of reaching consensus through technical discussion and compromise have failed, and that a vote is necessary to break a deadlock." The keys there are "substantive" and "compromise". This is *not* a substantive issue; the functionality remains the same. And the means by which the names where chosen was a kind of compromise, as is the process going on now. Several people are not thrilled with the new names, but they aren't pressing it further; if you think you can come up with a new name that hasn't been considered, and which you think will satisfy the most or all of the people involved, by all means submit it. This spec is not even in FPWD (First Public Working Draft) yet, nothing is set in stone... but judging from the heat of this debate, I'd say you'd have to come up with a pretty compelling set of names.
Well, the only natural name for me is getElementsBySelector and from what I read on irc from Lachlan, that is not going to happen, so there is nothing for me to debate, is there?
> Now, the opposite is being done of what the outcome was. Actually, that's not true. The new names are a substantial improvement over get() and getAll(), as well as most of the other alternatives.
Hmm, yeah, sort of ;)
> I can't believe that is normal. How often does that happen within the W3C? About as often as you might expect in a loosely-run group of enormous size and of diverse opinions where everyone contributes. You win some, you lose some... I'm personally going to save my energy for something more important to me.
Like I said before, I misunderstood. Thanks for your explanation! Regards, Martijn
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Votes Regards- -Doug
