W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:24:38 -0700
Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'Manu Sporny' <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "'Michael(tm) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'Anne van Kesteren' <annevk@opera.com>, 'Leif Halvard Silli' <lhs@malform.no>
Message-id: <C1C5352A-1FF5-4DAE-9CC6-B9B70F1CBD49@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On Jul 31, 2009, at 6:58 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 2009, at 5:59 PM, John Foliot wrote:
>>> My 2 requests are simple:
>>> Indicate in the current Working Draft that the ultimate fate of  
>>> @summary
>>> is an open issue (as opposed to a conformant but obsolete  
>>> attribute, which
>>> nobody has agreed to yet). [...]
>>> More importantly however, is to remove the author guidance that  
>>> today
>>> explicitly contradicts existing, W3C approved Accessibility  
>>> Guidance as
>>> written in WCAG 2.  [...]
>> I think it's reasonable for you to pursue these requests. Do you  
>> find the current Editor's Draft to be more objectionable on these  
>> points than the last published Working Draft? The previous working  
>> draft made summary="" entirely nonconforming, and contained  
>> accessibility advice on table descriptions contrary to WCAG2. I  
>> could understand holding publication if the Editor's Draft had  
>> gotten egregiously worse on some particular point, from your point  
>> of view. But I don't see the point of delaying publication if  
>> things are no worse (and arguably a bit better) than the last  
>> Working Draft.
> This is not a matter of delay.  Ignoring other drafts that may not  
> be in consideration, there apparently will be two drafts ready by  
> sometime Monday-ish.  If Ian is not predisposed to consider the  
> request that John has proposed and John has not withdrawn his  
> request, there will be a poll.  Based on the results of that poll,  
> one or both drafts will be published.

I think it would make sense to have a poll on publishing John's draft,  
once he has prepared one. I'm not sure it makes sense to plan to hold  
a poll on Monday, on publishing FPWD of a draft that does not exist as  
of today.

However, John's requests are currently couched as requests to change  
Ian's draft before it can be published. And your poll option #4 seems  
to be phrased that way too (although as I pointed out, it's not  
entirely clear what that option calls for).

I also note that you no longer seem to be applying your prior  
requirement for at least three independent contributors to Mike's  
draft or to John's possible future draft. Have you decided to set that  
rule aside?

Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 02:25:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:49 UTC