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

Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2

From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:27:13 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.2.20090802132112.06aa2ab8@mail.muzmo.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>,"Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>,Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Sam, et al,

I don't see how any of us could vote on this without understanding the meaning
of the choices. so, It seems fairly obvious that the chair should instruct 
the editor
to define the terms "obsolete" and/or "deprecated", and its subdivisions or 
subtypes
in the editor's draft. This is a quality assurance issue that is orthogonal 
to @summary.

Someone in an earlier post asked about the use of the term 'deprecated' in 
HTML.
As I recall, a variety of Davenport Group members suggested the use of 
'deprecated'
for some elements as early as HTML 2.0. The use of the term 'deprecated' 
has not
been seen as a problem for DocBook.

Regards,

Murray

At 07:03 AM 8/2/2009 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>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 17:27:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:50 UTC