W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > September 2014

WG Decision: Request transition of HTML5 to Proposed Recommendation

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:06:53 -0400
Message-ID: <540F178D.5060702@intertwingly.net>
To: public-html-admin@w3.org
On 09/01/2014 07:37 PM, Paul Cotton wrote:
> In accordance with both the W3C process's requirement to record the
> group's decision to request advancement [1], and with the steps
> identified in the "Plan 2014" CfC [2], this is a Call for Consensus
>
> (CfC) to request transition to Proposed Recommendation for the following
> document:
>
> http://htmlwg.org/heartbeat/PR-html5-20140916/
>
> For reference, here is a list of bugs addressed during the current
> Candidate Recommendation [3] stage for this document:
>
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&chfield=%5BBug%20creation%5D&chfieldfrom=2014-07-27&chfieldto=Now&component=CR%20HTML5%20spec&list_id=42800&product=HTML%20WG&query_format=advanced
>
> Note that some features marked as at risk in the current Candidate
> Recommendation [3] were removed [4].
>
> Test results and analysis for this specification can be found at [5-6].
>
> Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive
> responses are encouraged. If there are no objections by Monday September
> 8, this resolution will carry.
>
> Considerations to note:
>
> - A request to advance indicates that the Working Group believes the
> specification is stable and appropriate for advancement to
> Recommendation status.

In response to this CfC, we got a number of indications of support, and 
a single comment:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Sep/0001.html

The operational question at hand isn't whether or not the IETF considers 
this document to be a specification (they clearly don't as the draft has 
expired), but whether or not this document meets the W3C criteria for a 
normative reference[7].

As a result of the discussion, there seemed to be an agreement that a 
warning would be sufficient[8].  This suggestion has been captured as a 
comment in the original bug report[9], and this decision (and therefore 
the bug in question) will be referenced in the Transition Request.

Meanwhile, and with that note, this CfC passes.

> /paulc
>
> on behalf of the HTML WG co-chairs
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transition-reqs
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0026.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/CR-html5-20140731/
> [4] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24812#c17
> [5] Test results: http://w3c.github.io/test-results/html/less-than-2.html
> [6] Analysis: http://w3c.github.io/test-results/html/details.html

[7] http://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references
[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Sep/0024.html
[9] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26165#c2

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

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2014 15:07:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:36 UTC