Re: time at TPAC other than Wednesday?

On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 23:20:27 +0300, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote:

>
>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 7:12 PM, Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org>  
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:49 AM, Grisha Lyukshin <glyuk@microsoft.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> Hello Johannes,
>>>
>>>  I was the one to organize the meeting. To make things clear, this was  
>>> an ad hoc meeting with the intent for the browsers to resolve any  
>>> ambiguities and questions on beforeInput spec, which we did. This was  
>>> the reason I invited representatives from each browser only.
>>>
>>
>> In so far as to clarify the questions you had at the last meeting that  
>> you needed to resolve with your individual teams, that you had indeed  
>> announced at the meeting that you would talk about --- I think that is  
>> fair enough.
>>
>> I am not 100% familiar with all processes of the W3C, but from what I  
>> can tell, I don't think you can treat it as having been a F2F meeting  
>> of this taskforce, but you can say that you had some informal talks  
>> with your and the other teams about this and now you come back to the  
>> taskforce with a proposal of how to resolve it.
>>
>> Similarly, among JS editor developers we have been discussing  
>> informally about priorities and how we would like things to work. But  
>> those are informal meetings that cannot override the taskforce meetings.
>
> Nobody said our F2F was of the task force.
>
> Let me be blunt and say this.  I don't remember who nominated you to be  
> the editor of all these documents and who approved it.  If you want to  
> talk about the process, I'd like to start from there.

The chairs did. As per the W3C Process.

Cheers

Chaals

>>> To your question about removing ContentEditable=”true”. The idea is  
>>> consolidate multiple documents into a single editing specification  
>>> document. We wanted to remove ContentEditable=”true” because it had no  
>>> content there. So resolutions on CE=true from previous meetings remain  
>>> unchanged. There is no point on having empty document floating on the  
>>> web. So yeah, we wanted to remove the draft that has no content. We  
>>> will merge Input Events and other ContentEditable specs into a single  
>>> spec. We didn’t really have any discussions on execCommands spec.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I don't think that part can reasonably be said to have been part  
>> of something you could resolve in a closed door, unannounced meeting  
>> among only browser vendors.
>>
>> Both the treatment of the various documents and especially  
>> contentEditable=True has been very controversial in this taskforce in  
>> the past, and I don't think you can just set aside all processes and  
>> consensus methods to change this.
>>
>> So with all due respect, I don't think you can just delete it like  
>> that. Just as I cannot just delete part of the UI events spec because I  
>> have had a meeting with some people from TinyMCE and CKEditor and we  
>> decided we didn't like that part.
>
> If the task force comes to a consensus that the document was useful,  
> then we can just restore it.  The change was purely editorial in the  
> nature.  First off, I don't remember when we agreed that we needed to  
> have a separate spec for contenteditable=true separate from Aryeh's  
> document.  If you thought the consensus of the last Paris F2F was to do  
> that, then you either misunderstood the meeting's conclusion or I didn't  
> object in time.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, this is about removing an empty document the  
> task force never agreed to add in the first place.
>
> - R. Niwa
>
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
  chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Sunday, 10 January 2016 02:12:27 UTC