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

Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 07:03:07 -0400
Message-ID: <4A75726B.2000601@intertwingly.net>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
CC: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Given the number of objections, I don't believe that they can all be 
>> resolved by Monday, so here are the options I have heard so far.
>>
>>  1) Publish Ian's draft as is, along with the HTML 5 differences
>>     from HTML 4. [SR]
>>  3) Publish Ian's draft, the HTML 5 differences from HTML 4, and
>>     Mike's draft. [LM, JF1]
>>  4) Instruct Mike Smith to work with Ian to incorporate [text to
>>     be provided by John Foliot] into Ian's draft [JF2]
> 
> Unless I'm misreading, the number of poll options have gone from 5 to 3 
> (I very much like the direction this is taking!).  I base this on the 
> following emails (people are welcome to correct me if I got this wrong)...
> 
> Dropping 2:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0938.html
> 
> Dropping 5:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0940.html
> 
> At this time, I will state my preference, which is that Mike and John 
> follow Manu's lead (the first link above).

And now from 3 to 2.  I base this on the following email dropping the 
third option:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0012.html

John Foliot has the lone remaining objection, and he has indicated that 
he expects that he "will be able" to remove his second objection:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0039.html

I quoted "will be able" as that is quite a different thing than having 
done so.  John's request has two parts:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0001.html

Ian attempted to address one part:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0017.html

Which was acknowledged by John as being partially addressed:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0037.html

In that same email, John outlines what parts still remain (in his 
opinion) to be changed.

  - - -

Recapping the current state, as I understand it.

Ian has updated the current draft acknowledging that this is an issue. 
His acknowledgment, and the surrounding text, has been worded in a way 
that implies that the default will be obsolete, where John would be 
satisfied if this were worded in a way that the default is deprecated. 
Either way, it is still an open issue, and whichever way the default may 
seem to be in August does not in any way constrain the final outcome.

If John removes his objection, and nobody else comes forward, then there 
will be no remaining options, and therefore no poll.  If he does not, 
there are two options:

   1) Publish with @summary marked as obsolete
   2) Publish with @summary marked as deprecated

If the state does not change between now and tomorrow, I'm going to 
instruct Mike to put forward such a poll, with the results to be 
discussed in Thursday's call and a decision to be made there.

Let me remind people of the stakes involved here.  Per the W3C process, 
"Consensus is not a prerequisite for approval to publish; the Working 
Group MAY request publication of a Working Draft even if it is unstable 
and does not meet all Working Group requirements".

More specifically, if we decide to publish with @summary marked as 
deprecated, that does not preclude the draft going to Last Call with the 
attribute marked as obsolete or even fully conforming or fully 
non-conforming.  In fact, it does not require Ian's Editor's Draft to 
reflect this change for more than one brief moment.

If the result of the poll is that the group would prefer deprecated at 
this time and Ian indicates that he intends to continue with obsolete in 
his working drafts, I will ask that the HTML Working Group page[1] be 
updated to first mention the current working draft, then the (now 
historical) First Published Working Draft, and finally all the various 
ways in which one can follow the current editor's draft.

  - - -

The purpose of this email is to invite anybody who sees the state 
differently than I do to correct me.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 11:03:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:06 UTC