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

Re: Patches merged or staged for week 50

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2012 10:33:58 -0500
Message-ID: <50C35DE6.3080207@intertwingly.net>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On 12/08/2012 10:17 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>
> 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?

It certainly is a reasonable thing for the WG to discuss.

Hopefully, the WG can come up with a consistent 'bar' for new features 
that applies independent of the source of the proposal.

> 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

- Sam Ruby

> 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:
>>> https://accountaccess.edwardjones.com/ca-accounts/summary-of-accounts.action
>>>
>>>
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 15:34:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 8 December 2012 15:34:29 GMT