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

Re: Patches merged or staged for week 50

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:11:28 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+VnSpnPdjk_1-BJ1GOhP3gavMKW9Y1kCBoBAvUoUP=Vnsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html-admin@w3.org
A suggestion:

when an extension spec reaches FPWD status an editor can make a request
that it be included in HTML 5.1

any thoughts?

regards
Steve

On 8 December 2012 10:35, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Silvia,
>
> >Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: these criteria are only applied when the
> spec goes to REC. We have a mandate in the HTML WG to work with the WHATWG
> and >that's what we are doing here.
>
> While I agree we should be working with the WHATWG, the updated charter
> talks in these terms[1]
>
> "The HTML Working Group will consider proposals for future specifications
> from Community Groups, encouraging open participation within the bounds of
> the W3C patent policy and available resources."
>
> Which does not indicate to me that proposed new features that originate
> from the WHATWG spec are automatically added to HTML 5.1
>
> I also think we need to consider cases where there are competing proposals
> for a feature (example srcset vs picture)
>
> aside: I could not find the data element in 5.1 that is present in the
> WHATWG spec?
>
> regards
> SteveF
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/#liaisons
>
>
> On 8 December 2012 10:14, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> hi Silvia,
>>>
>>> I have no issue with the current process for bug fixes and editorial
>>> changes  etc.
>>>
>>> >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.
>>>
>>>  5.1 already includes features that do not meet these criteria, I would
>>> like to have a clear process for how these features are added regardless of
>>> their origin.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: these criteria are only applied when the
>> spec goes to REC. We have a mandate in the HTML WG to work with the WHATWG
>> and that's what we are doing here.
>>
>>
>> >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.
>>>
>>> This can and does occur in the w3c space as well. So I take it new
>>> features can be added to the 5.1 working draft by filing bugs and
>>> discussion in the working group.
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely!! In fact, it would be great if we had more technical
>> discussions on the list!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Silvia.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> regards
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8 December 2012 09:56, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 8 December 2012 11:12:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 8 December 2012 11:12:37 GMT