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

Re: ACTION-95, ISSUE-65: Plan to publish a new WD of HTML-5

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:09:17 -0500
Message-ID: <497F69ED.2060902@intertwingly.net>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Larry Masinter wrote:
> Voicing a concern:
> 
> An updated working drafts for HTML 5 should meet
> the same criteria of agreement and consensus as are
> asked of  "HTML 5: The Markup Language".

Agreed.

> I would object to publishing a new WD of HTML-5
> without also publishing HTML5: The Markup Language.

The underlying issue is that the W3C processes don't require consensus, 
but do require a decision.  As near as I can tell, the mechanism for 
arriving at a decision is left up to each workgroup.

I've proposed one such process in a response to another email:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0414.html

I'd like to kick-off discussion on that decision process at Thursday's 
call, to be continued on the mailing list for one week, and hopefully we 
will arrive at a conclusion by the following Thursday.  If so, we can 
begin to immediately apply that process to HTML5: The Markup Language.

Such an approach would likely mean that HTML5: The Markup Language is 
effectively pushed back by two weeks.  I'm OK with that.

I'm equally OK with allowing HTML 5. A vocabulary and associated APIs 
for HTML and XHTML to proceed immediately following Thursday's meeting 
as I feel it is highly unlikely that we would come up with a decision 
process that would block progress on that draft.

> To make progress, I suggest the same annotation in the
> "Status of this Document" section be included in both
> HTML5:AvaAfHaX and HTML5:TML when they are both
> published, in a way that will make clear that ISSUE-59
> is still unresolved, but provide an example of what
> a "clean language specification" might look like, 
> in order that the broader community can judge.

I would think that the following, as long as it is consistently applied 
to all draft documents would suffice:

    http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?uimode=filter&uri=#document-status
    "...This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or
    obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to
    cite this document as other than work in progress."

Do you have in mind something more?

> Larry

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 20:10:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:00 UTC