[uf-discuss] hCalendar spec- no specification included!

[Tantek Ç elik]

On 10/16/06 11:30 AM, "Andy Mabbett" <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

> In message <C159138D.7D909%tantek at cs.stanford.edu>, Tantek Çelik
> <tantek at cs.stanford.edu> writes
> 
>> On 10/16/06 10:38 AM, "Andy Mabbett" <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> I've just been introducing a colleague to the concept of hCalendar; and
>>> referred her to:
>>> 
>>>       http://microformats.org/wiki/hCalendar
>>> 
>>> She was baffled; not lest because, though the page had a treatise on
>>> "Semantic XHTML Design Principles", it didn't list the hCalendar fields,
>>> let alone say which are mandatory and which are optional!
>>> 
>>> I have started to rewrite the page, but welcome contributions.
>> 
>> Andy, it is actually a bit inappropriate to jump-in and rewrite a spec
>> that is that well established without at least discussing how to
>> rewrite it first,
> 
> Really? I thought that was the whole point of a Wiki.

In general yes it is the point of a wiki.  But surely you can appreciate
that some pages are more "stable" than others and have such expectations
(implied or otherwise).  Wikipedia provides many good examples of such
pages.


>> or emailing the editor at a minimum.
> 
> And ether was me thinking that you'd disclaimed ownership of uFs.

I'm unclear what you mean by this.  This has nothing to do with ownership.


>> There has already been work towards making the specifications more
>> readable/approachable etc.
> 
> It's well hidden.

It is better to assume that someone has thought of something first, than to
assume you are the first to think of it.

Thus it is better to ask about making the specifications more
readable/approachable than to just do it.


>> and I've documented this task on the to-do page here.
>> 
>> http://microformats.org/wiki/to-do#update_specification_section_organiz
>> ation
> 
> You did so *after* I made the changes referred to above.

Right, your actions made it clear that I had neglected to do so.


>> and would ask that you please refrain from doing so single-handedly.
> 
> I haven't dome anything "single-handedly". You quote me asking for
> contributions!

And you have made excellent contributions.

But asking for contributions on new subjects is very different than inviting
mass edits of existing pages.

Imagine what would happen if everyone attempted to do so (or even just a
dozen people).  There would be a lot of thrash, and worse still, the pages
that are stable and reliable would become less so to the readers of those
pages.


>> Please raise suggestions here on the list first and let's discuss them.
>> For established specifications in particular (and perhaps any with an
>> "editor"), we really should respect that role
> 
> And where is that role defined?

It was right there at the top of the specification.  If you are looking for
a formal definition of "editor" then it is reasonable to both use a
dictionary reference, and to look at what other standards organizations
define the editor's role to be, e.g. W3C, IETF.  The W3C site contains lots
of such useful resources.


>> until/unless it actually proves to be a hindrance (which it hasn't so
>> far).
> 
> It just has. HTH.

Sorry about that.  Could you be more specific in what has been hindered?


>> Thanks much for your understanding,
> 
> Once again, your tone is objectionable.

Andy, as has been noted by others, discussions of tone in email are usually
not very productive.  My only suggestion is that you try to assume that we
are all trying to do the right thing and make positive progress and help
each other out.

Thanks again,

Tantek