W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > September 2012

Re: Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:47:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+ri+V=MAVAOjYt1A9p+bopmZzU3wmhpQz0NFnDpPWWp8APcig@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "w3c-wai-pf@w3.org" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> (janina@rednote.net)" <janina@rednote.net>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> (jbrewer@w3.org)" <jbrewer@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Hi Sam,

a few comments/questions

Is it intended moving forward that any potential additions to HTML are
first developed in the form of an extension spec?

There appears to be no method for the WG to obsolete features from
HTML other than due to lack of implementation. Is this the case?

Can extension specs be developed that are not intended to be
potentially folded into the spec prior to 5.0 REC? For example the
maincontent element [1]


regards
SteveF

[1] http://www.html5accessibility.com/tests/maincontent.html

On 25 September 2012 23:15, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Based on feedback received to date, we have revised the 2014 plan:
>
>   http://intertwingly.net/tmp/html5-2014-plan.html
>
> As a part of this update, we also have updated the Draft Decision Policy and
> the Model Public Permissive CR Exit Criteria:
>
>   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v3.html
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html
>
> We have also started a page which we will use to capture a list of features
> at risk:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/HTML5.0AtRiskFeatures
>
> At the present time these documents are only intended to be snapshots
> demonstrating forward progress.  After a brief period of discussion the plan
> itself will be updated to reflect these changes:
>
>   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html
>
> Meanwhile feel free to compare the draft 2014 plan to the original.  A list
> of significant changes and change bars appear in the updated 2014 plan
> itself.
>
> The intent is to issue a Call for Consensus on this plan no earlier than
> early next week.  We request that everyone let us know ASAP if you see
> anything in this plan that you are likely to object to during the Call For
> Consensus,
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> On behalf of:
> Sam, Maciej, Paul, Janina, Philippe and Judy
> HTML Working Group Chairs, Protocols and Formats WG Chair & The W3C Team
>
> ----------
>
>
> On 09/19/2012 04:33 PM, Paul Cotton wrote:
>>
>> The HTML Working Group has made much progress on HTML5 and related
>> specifications. The HTML Working Group Chairs and the Protocols and Formats
>> WG Chair have been asked by the W3C Team to provide a credible plan to get
>> HTML5 to Recommendation status by 2014. Challenges remain in achieving this
>> goal. We sought to produce a plan that achieves this date and that has
>> minimal risk of delays from unexpected events.
>>
>> We'd like to now propose our draft plan [1] to the HTML Working Group for
>> consideration. Here are the key points of our plan:
>>
>>         - Revise the draft HTML WG charter to indicate an HTML 5.0
>> Recommendation in 2014Q4 and an HTML 5.1 Recommendation in 2016Q4.
>>         - Use Candidate Recommendation exit criteria to focus testing
>> where it is advisable (e.g. new features), without wasting time on testing
>> where it is inappropriate (such as when interoperability is already proven
>> on the Web).
>>         - Use modularity to manage the size and complexity of the
>> specifications while reducing social conflict within a constrained timeline:
>>                 - Gain agreement that the remaining open issues can
>> proceed via extension specifications at first. Provide an opportunity to
>> merge extension specifications back into the baseline spec upon getting WG
>> consensus and after the extension specifications meet their Candidate
>> Recommendation exit criteria.
>>                 -Welcome the option of extension specifications that don't
>> merge back at all and instead proceed at different paces and possibly even
>> with different Candidate Recommendation exit criteria.
>>
>> We encourage discussion of this draft plan in response to this email.  We
>> will also add this item to the respective agendas of the next meetings of
>> the HTML WG, the Accessibility Task Force and the PF WG.
>>
>> /paulc
>>
>> On behalf of:
>> Sam, Maciej, Paul, Janina, Philippe and Judy
>> HTML Working Group Chairs, Protocols and Formats WG Chair & The W3C Team
>>
>> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html
>>
>> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 08:48:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 26 September 2012 08:48:53 GMT