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

Re: heartbeat poll and an abstain option

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 08:48:11 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270908040648k27906fe8r5fa5ab1b85ced217@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 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
>

No, it's fine. I'm sorry I brought it up.

Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 13:48:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 1 October 2014 21:47:35 UTC