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

Re: Feedback on the current editor's draft

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:55:17 -0500
Message-ID: <4A819465.90801@burningbird.net>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Shawn Medero <smedero@uw.edu>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> 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

My questions to Microsoft were along the lines of will it support XHTML, 
canvas, and SVG. I would like to give the company a benefit of a doubt, 
but I do not expect an official company response to these three items to 
appear in the HTML WG. Ever.

>
> 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.
>
Going from the Formal Objection to Microsoft's feedback email is a 
stretch. But no, none of the questions were answered. We're still left 
in limbo about what Microsoft will, and will not, support. All the 
company has done with the feedback is express concern, not commitment, 
nor objection.

It was good to see something officially from the company, but what was 
expressed left us completely in the dark as to Microsoft's future plans 
when it comes to implementing sections of the HTML 5 spec that it hasn't 
already implemented. And most of what it has implemented has been split 
off from the spec.

But Issue 75 doesn't address this. It's just hanging there, with no path 
for resolution.


>> 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
>
I think there's a difference between having an issue with a specific 
section of the document, and pointing out a typo or error in the 
writing. I agree, though, that Bugzilla is the appropriate place for the 
latter.

> 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]
>
Agree on the first two, but not necessarily on your interpretation of 
<bb> being an example of a bug. But that's outside the question you 
specifically asked me.

>> 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
>
>

Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:08:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:50 UTC