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

Re: My position (was RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:22:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4A75D960.7070708@intertwingly.net>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
CC: 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'W3C WAI-XTECH' <wai-xtech@w3.org>, judy@w3c.org, "'Michael(tm) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'Maciej Stachowiak' <mjs@apple.com>
John Foliot wrote:
> 
> Actually, the state as Sam described it originally has changed.  I have 
> submitted an alternative Draft document for consideration;

  [snip]

> Differences Summary:
> 
>   (regarding @summary)
> 
> 1) added @summary as a conformant attribute of the table element (4.9.2.1)
> 
> 2) added explanation of @summary
> 
> 3) provided cautionary message that @summary is under review and may be 
> made obsolete (aka class="XXX")
> 
> 3) added example of @summary usage
> 
> 4) removed @summary from 12.1 Conforming but obsolete features
> 
>   (spelling correction)
> 
> 5) Corrected proper spelling of Braille (now written as a formal name) 
> at lines 1680 and 12607
> 
>   (housekeeping)
> 
> 6) added my name (with email contact) as an Editor to this Draft
> 
> 7) modified versioning to: Revision: 1.2720-a  (This is a presumption - 
> Sam it will probably be necessary to provide proper instruction to 
> others who will be branching or forking the specification moving forward)
> 
> 8) removed the text: "<p>This specification is also being produced by 
> the <a href="http://www.whatwg.org/">WHATWG</a>. The two specifications 
> are identical from the table of contents onwards.</p>" as this is of 
> course false.
> 
> 9) removed contact information at line 238 for WHAT WG as they likely 
> are not interested in supporting this branch of the specification at 
> this time
> 
> 10) added mirror location of this Draft at: http://foliot.ca/html5 and 
> have posted to that location

Below, I've attached the differences in 'cvs diff' format.  These are 
with respect to cvs revision 1.2720.

If a poll still turns out to be necessary (i.e, John does not withdraw 
his objection), the results will be published alongside Ian's draft for 
people to chose from.  They will be able to see the diffs in various 
levels of detail and be able to make an informed decision on the matter.

My intent is to allow both to make changes, either editorial (e.g. the 
spelling of Braille) or substantive (possibly towards either clarifying 
or closing the differences between the two approaches).  Either will be 
able to select individual diffs to include from the other if they so 
chose (e.g., if Ian makes unrelated changes, John may elect to pick them 
up).

- Sam Ruby


Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 18:23:07 UTC

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