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 14:43:38 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270908061243g64a1a32epb7d76db24efcea90@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Shelley Powers wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>>>> If someone publishes a Working Draft with many differences, can we
>>>>>> discuss each, or is it a case of all or nothing?
>>>>> I don't understand the question.
>>>> Sorry, I wasn't very clear.
>>>> Let's say an alternative draft changes how summary is handled, the
>>>> microdata section, and various other pieces of the Editor's draft. I'm
>>>> assuming we could propose the entire new draft, but we could also
>>>> propose each section, by itself. One document, multiple proposals.
>>>> Does that sound about right to folks?
>>> I'm still not following.  Propose as what?  Perhaps I have been confused
>>> because what we have in front of us is a proposal to publish a Working
>>> Draft.
>> Propose as alternatives to the specific section in the Editor's draft.
> I don't believe that we need to constrain ourselves to be talking about the
> (as in one) Editor's draft.
>>> Meanwhile, we have people working on Issue 32.  They aren't looking to
>>> rewrite the entire document.  I'll note that the early drafts I have seen
>>> made by a number of members of the PFWG on how they would like to see
>>> summary handled involve coordinated changes to a number of different
>>> sections.
>> I'm not talking about Issue 32, I'm talking about procedure moving
>> forward.
>> Up to now, the edits have been related to one issue. There is a good
>> possibility of upcoming alternative HTML 5 specifications being
>> related to multiple issues.
> Between the last published Working Draft and the current Working Draft
> (April 23rd) and the next one (August xx), quite a few changes were made
>  relating to any number of issues.
> At least three people proposed to come forward with alternative working
> drafts that address multiple perceived deficiencies in Ian's draft. Each
> (with the possible exception of Manu's) intended to address multiple issue.
>  To date, none of them have been presented for consideration by the working
> group.
>>> I guess it comes down to what the meaning of "proposal" is.  Ultimately,
>>> I
>>> see it as a set of diffs when applied to a document produces a new
>>> document.
>>>  Such diffs need not be constrained by section boundaries.
>> You see it as technology, I'm seeing it as a process. I don't want the
>> group's process to be dictated by the proposed technology, Sam.
> You seem to be inferring how I might see things and are reacting to that.
> I see it as one or more Working Drafts.  Possibly in parallel.  Possibly in
> succession.  Possibly with the same editors that have produced the previous
> drafts.  Possibly with a different set of editors.
> New Versions (independent of their source) may address multiple issues that
> are present in prior (or concurrent) drafts.
> I don't know how to say this any clearer.  Let me know if a phone call would
> help.
>>> - Sam Ruby
>> Shelley
> - Sam Ruby

I do not need a phone call, Sam, unless you want to talk to me so I
can my point more clearly to you.

Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 19:44:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:49 UTC