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 15:17:10 +0000
Message-Id: <12C58255-7370-4D02-8463-906BF7076641@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

Hi Sam,

If it is the case that new features can be added to HTML5.1 as described Is it a reasonable request that the main spec be merged?

 I can continue to edit it as a separate spec and changes can be pulled into 5.1 on the same basis and same level of WG oversight as when they are pulled from the WHATWG spec.

Regards 
Stevef

On 8 Dec 2012, at 14:53, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On 12/08/2012 07:08 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 8 December 2012 11:14, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com
>> <mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>    I think the relationship with the WHATWG is a special one since they
>>    are working on the same specification as us. We want to make every
>>    effort to provide a unified HTML specification to the world.
>> 
>> 
>> I  agree with the above in terms of implementation details of
>> implemented features.
>> 
>> In terms author conformance requirements and advice the W3C spec should
>> provide what is agreed as the best text by the HTML WG, regardless of
>> what is in the WHATWG spec.
>> 
>> In terms of new features the HTML 5.1 specification should reflect
>> decisions made in the HTML WG. Just as the WHATWG spec reflects the
>> decisions reached via the WHATWG process.
>> 
>> I think that having CFCs for addition of new features to 5.1 would be
>> not be an undue process burden and would provide the opportunity for
>> initial review.
> 
> I believe that emails with subject lines like "Patches merged or staged for week 50" should be sufficient for this purpose.  However that only works if people who push back on specific changes provide a rationale and editors don't ignore that pushback simply because it is in the WHATWG spec.
> 
> Note: I am not saying that either of those extremes apply in this situation.  I am simply saying that those extremes (it's a feature, therefore it can't go in; it in the WHATWG spec, we must accept it) are things to avoid.
> 
>> --
>> with regards
>> 
>> Steve Faulkner
>> Technical Director - TPG
>> 
>> www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> |
>> www.HTML5accessibility.com <http://www.HTML5accessibility.com> |
>> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner <http://www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner>
>> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
>> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ <http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/>
>> Web Accessibility Toolbar -
>> www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html>
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
Received on Saturday, 8 December 2012 15:19:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 8 December 2012 15:19:29 GMT