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

Re: Withdrawal of HTML5-warnings draft

From: Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:04:27 -0700
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E37CC02E-6CAA-48AB-9A23-2429A67B80CC@oracle.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Hi Manu,

Oracle voted against publishing your draft towards the WG's heartbeat  
requirement. However, we very much support the effort you have made  
and are considering in your next iteration. Specifically, #1 in your  
list is very much what would sway many of us towards publishing your  
draft as the WG's consensus.

And, as Sam said, you wouldn't have to wait until the next heartbeat.

Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com

On Aug 17, 2009, at 10:59 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:

> Noting that the current poll demonstrates that consensus would be
> difficult to achieve[1] regarding the publishing of the HTML5-warnings
> draft, I am withdrawing it as a candidate for publishing as a  
> heartbeat
> WD for HTML WG.
>
> There are a number of interesting data points that came out of the  
> poll
> data:
>
> 1) The biggest problem seemed to be a lack of consistency with which
>   warnings were provided as well as the warning language. Even though
>   more consistent rules were applied to the second draft, the changes
>   were not enough. The next draft that I author will apply a  
> consistent
>   set of rules for warnings and status markers. For example, a
>   combination of WHAT WG status markers and all ISSUES from the HTML  
> WG
>   issue tracker older than X months).
> 2) Publishing more than one WD at a time seems to be a very unpopular
>   way forward. It may be that publishing non-normative differences
>   as WDs are problematic, or it may be that publishing more than
>   one WD is seen as confusing... but the issue is not as
>   uncontroversial as Ian, Sam and I had hoped it would be.
> 3) The issue seemed to be divisive, with many people voting for one
>   WD and not the other.
> 4) Since respondents could see the poll results before the poll was
>   over, the results may have been subject to block voting (for both
>   drafts).
> 5) I had not seen any opposition or support from a number of the  
> voters
>   that voted, prior to voting. It's concerning because they provided  
> no
>   feedback, have made very few posts to HTML WG (if any) over the past
>   several months, but still voted on the spec. Both drafts received
>   these votes, and we have no idea if the people that voted had read
>   the thread in detail or truly understood what they were voting for.
>   There are several examples where it is clear that the voters were  
> not
>   tracking the discussion on this mailing list.
> 6) The poll was fairly close, so there is a non-trivial number of  
> people
>   that care about warning/status language being published with the
>   HTML5 spec.
>
> The next step is to iterate on the current HTML5-warnings draft and
> create a mechanism that is programmatic that inserts the proper  
> warning
> text, from both the WHAT WG status tracker and HTML WG issue tracker  
> (as
> an overlay) to the W3C published spec. Once the "issue consistency"
> problem is addressed, HTML5 community feedback will be encouraged in
> order to determine if there are more improvements that will be  
> required
> when publishing warning/stability text along with the HTML WG draft.
>
> -- manu
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/wd08/results
>
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 06:07:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:06 UTC