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

Re: heartbeat poll and an abstain option

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:44:14 -0400
Message-ID: <4A783B2E.3040002@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Shelley Powers wrote:
> Perhaps it's just me, and Sam correct me, but I think we're getting
> off track on the heartbeat poll.
> 
> We're arguing about the state of @summary in HTML 5 going forward, but
> the heartbeat poll only has to do with the text that's in the next
> formally published Working Draft. Once published, the text of the
> draft could be altered and @summary added back in as an "obsolete but
> conforming" attribute again. Then we'll have to start all over again.

The one thing that I think that there is agreement on is that the 
summary issue is not closed.  Both Hixie's and Foliot's text explicitly 
state that.

> The reason I'm asking for clarification in this regard is that I am
> interested in a poll or vote about including @summary in a final
> version of HTML 5, but I will most likely abstain from voting (poll or
> otherwise) in regards to the Working Draft as it is now worded. I have
> several issues with the document, and am concerned that any vote will
> be seen as supporting either document, and I don't support either
> document.

I would have hoped that if you had any concerns, you would have 
expressed them the during the course of this discussion.

As to discussions about the final version of HTML5, such discussions are 
at the very minimum months away.  What we have now is clearly not ready 
for Last Call.  It would surprise me greatly if we had a Last Call and 
there weren't objections made in response to that Last Call that caused 
substantive changes to be made to the draft.

> However, it is publishing a Working Draft, which we can then use as a
> base on which to create alternative text for submitting to the group.
> One of the problems those of us interested in submitting alternative
> text is that the Editor's Draft is in constant state of change, and a
> Working Draft would provide a solid basis on which to build change. I
> have no interest in holding up the publication, I just don't want to
> imply any support for either version currently being considered via
> this upcoming poll.

If you have worthwhile changes and Ian has worthwhile changes, 
eventually those changes will have to be merged.  I do see this week's 
draft as a more solid of a basis for you to work on than the April 
draft.  However, at the end of the month, I will likely feel that way 
about that week's draft vs the one we are discussing now.

> Sam can we have an abstain option in that poll? Or does that really
> only apply with a vote? I don't want to just not vote or participate,
> I'd like to provide information about why I'm abstaining from a vote.

I'll admit that I don't see the point.  If you have opinions you would 
like to share, I would recommend that you do so here, on public-html. 
If you don't wish to participate in the poll, that's fine too.

But if you object to this poll because it does not contain an abstain 
option, say so.  If two others agree, I'll add an abstain option.

> Shelley

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 13:44:58 UTC

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