W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Patches merged or staged for week 50

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 20:56:30 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2knKqNPbXopz0nvi+w1d_jJtp_1-5_Pg4T7pn7-ZtY3+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html-admin@w3.org
(Thanks for moving this over to the admin list)

Hi Steve,

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:

> -public
> +public-admin
>
> Hi Silvia,
>
> >I assume that by this you are asking to pull this specification out into
> a separate extension spec to give it a chance to also still be included in
> HTML5?
>
> I don't think that new features should  be added to HTML 5.1 simply
> because they are in the whatwg spec, without being first flagged for review
> by the working group.

Also the bar for addition of features to 5.1 should be documented (if its
> not already?) How do none whatwg originating new feature additions occur?
>


This are very good questions. The WHATWG makes progress on features because
of bugs being registered there and discussions happening on their mailing
list and irc channels. These discussions generally stem from browser
vendors or Web developers. All of the fixes that are made have a reason.

I am staging the fixes in the master branch every week and announcing them
in an email on the main list, so interested parties can inform themselves
and react. These fixes go into the editor's draft, but not into the PWD,
which is created from a separate branch. There is, thus, a lengthy review
period during which HTML WG participants can inform themselves and register
bugs. I would have thought that that is exactly what you are asking for:
every week I ask for a review by the WG. Do you think that is not
sufficient?

As for what the bar for addition of new features to 5.1 is ... I think
ultimately it's the W3C process document that answers this: interoperably
implemented features in multiple UAs, right? HTML5.1 is not really HTML5.1
until it reaches REC and before then anything can happen.

Regards,
Silvia.


> regards
> SteveF
>
>
> On 8 December 2012 09:22, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I assume that by this you are asking to pull this specification out into
>> a separate extension spec to give it a chance to also still be included in
>> HTML5?
>
>
>
>
> --
> with regards
>
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG
>
> www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
> Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 8 December 2012 09:57:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 8 December 2012 09:57:19 GMT