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

Re: WG comments, Working Drafts, and Last Call -- clarification please?

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:12:06 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270908061212u35001747qab432c7ef73f79a2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Shelley Powers wrote:
>>
>> I followed the teleconference in IRC archives. A lot of stuff.
>>
>> Questions of clarification:
>>
>> Do we still have discussion when it comes to publishing a Working
>> Draft, regardless of who publishes it?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Do we need consensus, or are all Working Drafts being published,
>> unless someone actively protests?
>
> No, we don't need consensus.  No, individual submissions are not
> automatically published as Working Drafts.
>
> The normal course is that in order to publish a Working Draft a Working
> Group decision is required.  If the chairs can justify it, they can
> authorize exceptions.  We could, for example, decide to simply publish Ian's
> draft at this time.
>

I'm assuming that this doesn't mean we'll have links from the HTML WG
main page to alternative drafts, because a WD is a document that has
gone through the FPWD process, which is governed by more formal
procedures.

My confusion is that I was thinking of our alternative specifications
as Working Drafts, but they aren't. Not unless the group decides to
replace the Editor's draft with one of the alternatives.

>> If someone publishes a Working Draft with many differences, can we
>> discuss each, or is it a case of all or nothing?
>
> No discussion is (or has been) forbidden.
>

Sure, I meant can we submit a formal proposal to adopt a piece from
one document, and a piece from another, for incorporation into a
third?

> I don't see publishing a sentence or a paragraph or chapter 4.9.2 "The table
> element" as a working draft.  I can see (for example) either RDFa in HTML as
> a separate draft from HTML5 OR as a part of HTML5.
>

Oh, I agree, the change should be substantial enough not to waste
folks time. Preferably something that could easily incorporated, such
as a replacement section.

>> Is it true that the Working Group can't comment during Last Call? That
>> we have to raise issues before then?
>
> My reading of the processes and procedures document is that consensus of the
> Working Group is required prior to Last Call.  I don't believe that
> precludes people from changing their minds.
>

Makes sense, it's just that October is very, very close, and we're so
very, very far apart. In fact, consensus seems to be inversely
proportional to how close LC is.


>> If this is true, is Last Call still on schedule for October? Do we
>> know when in October?
>
> I do believe that Ian hopes to be ready for Last Call by October, but at the
> moment, that's all it is: a hope and perhaps even an expectation.  I will
> say that unless we get the PF Working Group to make an exception to their
> current plans and procedures, Ian will not have the feedback he needs[1] in
> order to address ARIA integration by that time.  Cynthia and StevenF both
> indicated that they will look into it this week and will report back on a
> request to expedite that one request in next week's call.
>

Seems to me we'd rather wait a bit and make sure we do it right than
rush, but that's just my opinion.

>> Thanks for clarification
>>
>> Shelley
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0279.html
>

Thanks

Shelley
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 19:12:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT