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

Re: Feedback on the current editor's draft

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:31:51 -0400
Message-ID: <4A818EE7.8000301@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
CC: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Shawn Medero <smedero@uw.edu>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Shelley Powers wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Adrian Bateman wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 07, 2009 3:18 PM, Shawn Medero wrote:
>>>> Associating this thread with ISSUE-75 for the benefit of tracker. 
>>>> (Though, it is not clear to me what ISSUE-75 wants to accomplish.
>>>> It seems like Adrian's email has the potential to open up several
>>>> separate issues depending on the pulse of the working group...
>>>> where as ISSUE-75 looks a lot more like an ACTION item.)
>>>
>>> ISSUE-75 is "Microsoft Review of HTML5". I notice in the mail where
>>> Sam mentioned creating the issue it was alongside re-opening the
>>> codec issue (ISSUE-7 "codec support and the <video> element"). I'm
>>> not sure if the two are related or not. Is there a specific question
>>> here? Is there a clear idea of what we need to do to close this
>>> issue?
>>
>> I've added a link to your feedback, and changed the status to PENDING 
>> REVIEW.  As far as I'm concerned, this item is addressed to my 
>> satisfaction. [full disclosure: the last ECMA TC39 meeting was in 
>> Redmond, and I took the opportunity to meet with Mike Champion, 
>> Cynthia Shelly, Chris Wilson, Rob Mauceri, and Dean Hachamovitch.  My 
>> input is based on what I saw and discussed there].
>>
>> But before closing issue-75, I'd like to give others an opportunity to 
>> comment.  In particular I'd appreciate the input of Shelley Powers who 
>> indirectly was responsible for the creation of this issue.
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Adrian.
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
> I'm not sure why I seem to figure into this issue, other than it is 
> important that one vendor not be allowed to mandate what is, or is not 
> included in the specification. However, voting on that as an issue is 
> just opening the door to a plethora of circular arguments, manifested in 
> an avalanche of emails, so it's better to focus on individual items, 
> such as the video issue, which is covered in Issue 7.

You asked a number of specific questions of Microsoft here:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jul/0093.html

For my purposes, I'm expecting Microsoft to raise any objections to 
whatever they might happen to want to object to, and I'm expecting that 
that will be done prior to Last Call.  As they are aware of this 
expectation and are now actively participating, I'm satisfied.

I'm providing you an opportunity to review what you originally asked for 
and if you are satisfied.  While I was unable to find a way to deal with 
your original objection as a Formal Objection, I have taken the input 
seriously and am trying to follow through with addressing your concerns.

> I think we should close Issue 75, but we should open new issues for the 
> specific subtopics covered in the original email by Adrian Bateman, if 
> they are not already covered by an issue. The issues might end up being 
> quickly closed, but at least this acknowledges Microsoft's feedback.
> 
> I'll be glad to go through the feedback email, the existing issues, and 
> make note of where an issue already exists for an item, and open a new 
> issue if one doesn't exist. If this is acceptable, than I don't see why 
> Issue 75 should stay open.

If there is no investigation needed and no disagreement, bugzilla should 
be pursued first.  This is linked off of the HTML WG page, and can be 
found here:

   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/bugzilla

Canvas Accessibility is an example of an issue.  Summary is an example 
of an issue.  The <bb> element appears to be an example of a bug.[1]

> Shelley

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0511.html

> (Sorry, Sam, first email went to you alone)

( I can't say that I haven't done that before :-) )

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:32:50 GMT

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