Re: Editorial patches staged for merge week 49

Committee Draft.

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>wrote:

>  >All new content in a HTML5.1 spec is only proposed until the spec goes
> to CD
>
> What do you mean by "CD"?
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
>  ------------------------------
> From: Silvia Pfeiffer
> Sent: 09/12/2012 12:31 AM
> To: Sam Ruby
> Cc: public-html-admin@w3.org
>
> Subject: Re: Editorial patches staged for merge week 49
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/08/2012 04:40 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So, wrt extension specs: the way I understand them is that they are for
>>> the HTML5 spec: they specify features that somebody hopes to still get
>>> into HTML5, rather than HTML5.1 [1].
>>>
>>>  [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/**decision-policy/html5-2014-**plan.html<http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html>
>>>
>>
>> I disagree.  See:
>>
>> "During this process, we will encourage modularity as a preferred way to
>> approach introducing new features into the 5.1 release."
>>
>> Reference:
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/**decision-policy/html5-2014-**
>> plan.html#html5.1-milestones<http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#html5.1-milestones>
>>
>>
> Sure, modularity is a good way to introduce big features. But what about
> small features?
>
> I don't think we want to go to the extent of making every single patch an
> extension spec. All new content in a HTML5.1 spec is only proposed until
> the spec goes to CD - actually really until it goes to REC, but with more
> rigorous weeding of features from about CD on. I don't see it practical
> until CD to work with an extension spec for every change, or even every new
> small feature.
>
> Any big feature - such as the introduction of encrypted media - is
> certainly better introduced through a separate spec. However, there is a
> difference between a modular new spec and an extension spec as for HTML5.
>
> Silvia.
>