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

RE: Editorial patches staged for merge week 49

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:03:09 +0000
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AB5704B0EEC35B4691114DC04366B37F1F6990B3@TK5EX14MBXC291.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
The W3C Process does not use the term "Committee Draft" so I don't understand your statement "All new content in a HTML5.1 spec is only proposed until the spec goes to CD".  Do you mean "Working Draft", "Last Call Working Draft" or something else?

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

From: Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 1:48 AM
To: Paul Cotton
Cc: Sam Ruby; public-html-admin@w3.org
Subject: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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

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

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.
Received on Monday, 10 December 2012 07:05:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 December 2012 07:05:58 GMT