W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Request for clarification on HTML 5 publication status (ISSUE-19)

From: Roger Johansson <roger@456bereastreet.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:06:16 +0100
Message-Id: <EFFA243A-4599-4018-A771-9793A6321511@456bereastreet.com>
To: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>


On 29 nov 2007, at 15.15, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote:

> I pass over much of Ian's message, and address one point only :
>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>> The one decision that the HTML WG _has_ made up to this point was  
>> to adopt the WHAT WG draft wholesale, so it seems that this  
>> objection is ill-timed.
>
> The HTML WG agreed to adopt the WHAT WG /as a starting point for
> future discussion/.  The omission of these words in Ian's message,
> and the ?deliberate? addition of the word "wholesale"  could easily
> lead the naive reader to believe that this group had agreed to adopt
> the WHAT WG draft unconditionally.  We have not.

Agreed. It may be good to clarify that what we voted on was the  
following:

"Shall we adopt these documents as our basis for review?
A "yes" response indicates a willingness to use these documents as the  
basis for discussion with the editors and the WG going forward. It  
does notconstitute endorsement of the entire feature set specified in  
these documents, nor does it indicate that you feel that the documents  
in their present state should become a W3C Recommendation or even a  
W3C Working Draft."

<http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results>

That's "basis for review" and "basis for discussion", not "adopt the  
WHAT WG draft wholesale".

/Roger
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 19:06:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:10 GMT