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

Re: HTML5-warnings - minimum supporters requirement met

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:02:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4A7FF027.7000105@gmx.de>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> ...
> 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 substantial (intended) difference is that points out several areas 
that are controversial.

> 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.

I do not perceive those as random.

> 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 find it very helpful, in that it indicates to the reader that that 
piece of the spec needs additional review and feedback, and my be 
removed before LC. The issue tracker is no substitute for that, because 
consumers of the Working Drafts are unlikely to look there.

> 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 original proposal was to publish this draft *instead* of the 
Editor's version.

> 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?

That's a good question -- see above.

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 10:03:07 GMT

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