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

Re: Editorial patches staged for merge week 49

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:16:30 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2nnD8M5_CkqSswBcm7HSpJfxQfZ+WKMv--U-kQ1gXaBeQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
Apologies - I should have looked up the actual names: I meant "Committee
Recommendation".
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#q74

Read this as "CR" instead of "CD".

Silvia.


On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>wrote:

>  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>
> 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****
>
>
> 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 11:17:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 December 2012 11:17:20 GMT