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

Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:58:25 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0908111158j7da7e4b6o6cec16d74e98aa8e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Manu Sporny<msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>> If we are carefully writing the HTML5 standard so that it provides
>>> browser interoperability and some other working group willfully violates
>>> parts of the HTML5 standard, I would expect that we would take issue
>>> with that.
>>
>> If some other working group contradicts parts of HTML5 because HTML5 is
>> wrong, then I wouldn't take issue, I'd fix HTML5. Unfortunately other
>> groups haven't always had quite the same commitment to documenting what
>> implementations do.
>
> I agree, in principle, with the statement you've made above. I
> understand that some other groups have not been as vigilant as WHAT WG
> in documenting what implementations actually do - and I think that
> should be a strong consideration when determining if a specification is
> actually working out in the field.
>
> We cannot, however, willfully break other specifications without there
> being blowback. For example, here's what I'm asserting happened with
> @summary:
>
> 1. Gather some data and report the @summary issue to WAI/PFWG.
> 2. WAI/PFWG does not respond satisfactorily, for whatever reason.
> 3. Break the WAI/PFWG guidance by authoring normative language into the
>   HTML5 spec.
> 4. Disaster.
>
> Here's what I'm asserting should have happened with @summary:
>
> 1. Gather some data and report the @summary issue to WAI/PFWG.
> 2. WAI/PFWG does not respond satisfactorily, for whatever reason.
> 3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 until WAI/PFWG responds satisfactorily, OR
> 4. Propose alternatives that could replace @summary that meet WAI/PFWG's
>   requirements. Author preliminary language into the HTML5
>   specification and note that the solution does not enjoy consensus
>   and is controversial.

We have a heartbeat requirement forcing us to publish *something*
every 3(?) months. How do you propose to satisfy that if we do 3
above?

Isn't 4 what has happened? Is there a specific WAI/PFWG rule that the
suggested rule of using <caption> violates? The part that hasn't
happened is marking it controversial I guess, is that what you are
referring to that keeps step 4 from being fulfilled?

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 18:59:19 GMT

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