W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > December 2011

Since when is an affadavit of implementation part of the Last Call Process

From: <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 08:15:40 -0600
To: public-html-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <4EE3698C.32335.1E47B02@shelleyp.burningbird.net>
Per this email(1) to the HTML WG, Sam Ruby, HTML5 WG Co-Chair wrote:

"On 12/09/2011 05:42 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> I see Ian replaced the entire Canvas 2D API spec. without a formal proposal:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/

Should a formal proposal not be forthcoming, and should you be able to 
obtain testimonials from at least two major implementors that that they 
would be willing to implement your proposal should it be adopted, then 
you have nothing to worry about. "

Since when it is an affadavit of support from two implementors a requirement for a Last Call 
document? And how do you define "implementor"? I would hope you wouldn't limit 
"implementor" to browser, only, because libraries implement HTML; book readers implement 
HTML; accessibility tools implement HTML; other tools implement HTML. I would hope that 
the W3C isn't just turning over control of the HTML specification to, well, Google, and 
perhaps one or two other companies. 

Once the document has successfully completed LC, then the W3C will call for 
implementations, but as far as I know, the HTML5 spec--whatever's left of it--isn't at this 
point.

Or has the W3C decided on the fly to change its procedures in order to accommodate the 
HTML5 editor? Again?

I have to ask: is there any reason that anyone other than Ian Hickson be a member of the 
HTML WG? I'm not saying this to be snarky; it is a legitimate question. 

If I understand an earlier email related to <time> the editor's draft has again been changed to 
reflect what Ian Hickson and his friend, want(2). The co-chair used as a reason for this action 
that it is the editor's personal draft only.

Fine--but remove the link to the draft from the front page of the HTML WG (that's Working 
_Group_ in case you forgot), because the only thing that should be linked on the front page is 
a copy of the spec as it is decided on by the group. 

Otherwise those of us on the outside are even more confused about what's happening in the 
HTML WG--if that's even humanly possible. 

Shelley Powers

(1) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Dec/0068.html
{2} http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Dec/0061.html
Received on Saturday, 10 December 2011 14:18:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 December 2011 14:18:32 GMT