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

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:50:16 -0500
Message-ID: <4A75DFE8.6020604@burningbird.net>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, '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>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> 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.

So what you're saying is that the vote will be between two documents, to 
determine which will be the Editor Draft from now on? Or are you saying 
both drafts will co-exist on the front page? Does the vote also 
encompass adding John formally as a co-editor, too?

>
> 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).
>

Is this changing all coming about before a vote or after?

> - Sam Ruby

Shelley
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 18:51:05 UTC

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