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 22:16:55 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kGYxqwtUns2nz5OVXmuKAtUN+4FPrYrVFHW=kD_dEbRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html-admin@w3.org
Actually, I think that's fair. (Except of course where the spec is big
enough to stay in its own document and follow its own maturity path.)
Silvia.

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 11:17:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 8 December 2012 11:17:43 GMT