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: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:39:27 -0800
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <5CE3E335-C044-4D74-ACB8-C72A9C26FF4C@apple.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>


On Jan 29, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:

>
> Some of us have a different experience with that. But to avoid  
> having to come up with metrics about whether what type of document  
> gets what kind of review I'd rather we simply reached agreement on  
> whether one is more harmful than the other. If you think EDs and WDs  
> get the same level of review, then surely it doesn't matter to you  
> whichever of those two it gets released as? :)

I think there are differences between ED and WD other than level of  
review the document receives as a result. For one, a REC-track WD  
triggers patent review. For another, a REC-track WD states an  
intention to proceed along the REC track, or at least seriously  
consider doing so. The second of these differences is what I am not  
comfortable with. If the draft is modified to clearly indicate that  
its REC track status is undecided, then I will have no objection to  
publishing it. That can be done in a number of ways - one would be to  
remove normative conformance claims. Another would be a suitable  
disclaimer in the introduction, depending on wording. Possibly both of  
these changes could be made.

I would also like the group to agree that we need to come to  
resolution on these issues (normativity of this document; how the spec  
should be factored) before proceeding to Last Call, because by  
definition we can't go to Last Call with a non-REC track document.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 01:40:14 GMT

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