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

Re: HTML5-warnings - minimum supporters requirement met

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:45:40 +0200
Message-ID: <4A7FEC44.5040906@lachy.id.au>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> So what I would like to ask is that if there is anybody who
> disagrees with any of the following, please say so, and indicate why.
> Indicating why is not optional. The reason need not be something others
> will agree with (obviously), but must not be frivolous.
>
>> ----------------- Pick one --------------------------
>> [ ] Publish Ian's latest draft to address the heartbeat requirement.
>> [ ] Publish Ian's latest draft with Manu's warning language to
>> address the heartbeat requirement.
>> [ ] Publish both Ian's latest draft and Manu's latest warning
>> language draft.

Personally, I do not support the publication of Manu's draft because it 
contains no substantial differences from the current spec (ignoring the 
unintended inclusion of sections like web storage and databases that 
have been split out into their own seprate specs).

The real motivation for his draft appears to be to point out the 
disagreement with the microdata section, with a few other seemingly 
random issues tacked on to make the proposal appear more substantial 
than it really is.

Generally, issues noted in the spec should be reserved for open 
technical issues that are useful for readers to be aware of while 
reviewing technical aspects of the draft, and should be inserted solely 
at the discretion of the editor.  For example, pointing out where 
sections are not yet written or completed, or where there are known edge 
cases that weren't addressed properly when the section was written. 
Using them to point out controversy within the group is not particularly 
helpful for technical reviewing.  The spec itself should not be used as 
an group issue tracker.  We have other more appropriate tools for that.

I also do not support publishing both drafts simultaneously because 
doing so will be a PR nightmare.  Trying to explain to the public why 
this group has seemingly split and published two almost identical, yet 
competing drafts is not going to be easy or fun, especially when the 
differences are only a matter of a few frivolous warnings.

The W3C's systems are also not really designed for doing so.  If we did 
publish both, which one would be put under /TR/html5/ and where would 
the other be put?

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 09:46:19 GMT

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