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

Re: Editorial patches staged for merge week 49

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:59:33 +0100
To: "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.wo339jtfy3oazb@chaals.local>
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:16:30 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer  
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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".

Actually, I think you meant "Candidate Recommendation". Which also makes  
sense in the context.

cheers

> 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.
>>
>>
>



-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 10 December 2012 18:00:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 December 2012 18:00:22 GMT