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

Re: ISSUE-59: normative-language-reference FPWD

From: Philip TAYLOR (ret'd) <chaa006@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:57:23 +0000
Message-ID: <4979E8E3.1040408@Gmail.Com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

[Apologies if this duplicates something you have
  already seen (or will see); there seems to be a
  hold-up at my SMTP relay, so I am re-posting this
  message via an alternative route.]

Sam, if I understand your question correctly (and
I should add that I have just read the first part
of Dan C's more recent message to ensure that I
understand your message as best I can), then the
whole issue of whether or not to publish

     "HTML 5: The Markup Language"

seems to hinge on whether or not the WG agrees
that the HTML draft should be split into
separate specifications (of which "HTML 5: TML"
would be one).  But in his capacity as WG Chairman,
Mike Smith announced a (voluntary) moratorium [1]
on discussing this issue on 25-Nov-2008 at 07:48.

As that moratorium has not yet been lifted, it
seems premature to me to be discussing whether
or not to publish "HTML 5: The Markup Language".

I would very much like the moratorium lifted so
that the WG can attempt to resolve this vexed
question, and then move on to other matters.

Philip TAYLOR
--------
[1] On 25-Nov-2008 at 07:48 Michael(tm) Smith wrote:

 > Speaking in my official position as one of the current co-chairs
 > for the group, I'd like to ask that we all agree to a voluntary
 > moratorium for the time being on further discussion about if/how
 > the existing HTML5 draft should be split into separate specs.
 >
 > I think it's been useful to have a discussion about it, but we are
 > now at a point in the discussion where there really is not much
 > new information being put forward. So I think at this point, Chris
 > Wilson and I need to take a look at the record of the discussion
 > and make a decision about how best to work further with the group
 > on getting a resolution to the discussion.
 >
 > So please refrain for the time being from posting further messages
 > to the list on the spec-splitting topic. That includes follow-ups
 > or replies to other messages. For those cases, you are of course
 > free to post replies off-list, including to me directly if it's
 > something you want me to read. I just ask that you don't post them
 > to the list for now.
 >
 >   --Mike
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 15:58:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:28 GMT