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

[wbs] response to 'Publish HTML 5 update with or without warnings?'

From: WBS Mailer on behalf of chaals@opera.com <webmaster@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:40:01 +0000
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <wbs-76605753aea092424205530c5cc54b60@cgi.w3.org>

The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Publish HTML 5
update with or without warnings?' (HTML Working Group) for Charles
McCathieNevile.



---------------------------------
Publish draft without warnings?
----
Do you support publishing this Editor's draft (i.e., without 
the additional warnings, also a.k.a. Ian's draft) as a Working Draft at
this time?



 * ( ) Yes
 * (x) No

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
I think Ian's current draft is not sufficiently clear as to the real
status of agreement in the working group (let alone the wider HTML
community), and this creates a misleading impression.

Given the importance of HTML and the value of implementation of drafts, I
think that is insufficient guidance to the community, and that we would
benefit from providing more clarity to people who may read the spec but not
follow the endless discussions of the working group, in order that they
concentrate their efforts with some understanding of what clearly enjoys
wide support, and what is a temporary and speculative section really
reflecting where Ian is up to in processing his email backlog more than
anything else.




---------------------------------
Publish draft with warnings?
----
Do you support publishing this Editor's draft (i.e., with 
additional warnings, also a.k.a. Manu's draft) as a Working Draft at this
time?
In order to provide more useful feedback regarding which warning text
should not be considered controversial and thus, should be removed,
please follow the suggestions outlined in this email.


 * (x) Yes
 * ( ) No

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
There are various unhelpful value-judgements (terms like "wilfully ..." in
the warnings that should be removed first. However, clarifying the status
of various sections is something I think should be done, and I far prefer
to see the annotation of sections that do not enjoy consensus as part of
the formal drafts that we produce.




---------------------------------
What to publish?
----
Given that these documents differ only in the presence or absence of
warnings, how would you like the results of the poll to be interpreted?



 * ( ) I would prefer to publish all Editor's Drafts that have majority
approval as Working Drafts.
 * (x) I prefer to publish only the one Editor's Draft receiving the most
votes as a Working Draft.

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
Publishing two drafts seems likely to lead to confusion, and to make life
more easy for those who want to "game" the process to produce their desired
outcomes.

However I agree with Larry that a serious attempt to reach consensus makes
more sense than going through with something that receives a large minority
of dissent. 

I recognise that the decision on how to proceed is up to the chairs,
rather than a poll of all comers actually being binding.

Please note that Opera Software, with many participants in the group, is
not expressing a formal opinion at this time, but rather each participant
is free to vote as they see fit, in what we understand to be the spirit of
this poll. Should a suggestion such as Larry's be accepted, we would of
course submit a single formal vote clarifying that it is such.


These answers were last modified on 11 August 2009 at 17:39:33 U.T.C.
by Charles McCathieNevile

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/wd08/ until 2009-08-17.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 17:40:11 UTC

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