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 15:58:37 +0000
Message-Id: <75703449-1560-4731-9989-B4BB3256B6AC@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
I have submitted a bug request 

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20309

Regards 

SteveF

On 8 Dec 2012, at 15:33, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> 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 16:00:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 8 December 2012 16:00:56 GMT