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

Re: Publishing a new draft (was: Draft of @summary text for HTML 5 poll)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:33:40 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Message-id: <64057F26-6F84-48F3-BF66-C5465309F79B@apple.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>

On Jul 28, 2009, at 10:04 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:

>> Ian, Anne, Mike: it is time to meet our heartbeat requirements.   
>> Would
>> it be possible for each of you to do whatever magic it takes to  
>> produce
>> a new published draft (and accompanying HTML 5 differences document)?
>
>> I'm quite willing to go with lazy consensus on this, so unless  
>> anybody
>> objects to us replacing the 23 April draft with a more recent  
>> version,
>> and does so by the time we complete our next call (possibly to be
>> scheduled for 30 July), then I will view that as a group decision to
>> publish.
>
> I object to the working group ONLY publishing a new draft of
> the Hixie fork of the HTML5 specification, because the industry
> and the public are already confused enough about the state of
> the activities of the W3C HTML working group and the process
> we are embarking on.
>
> My objection would be satisfied if we also simultaneously published
> Mike Smith's document and/or Manu's fork as First Public Working
> Drafts along with a clear public explanation of the process we
> are now engaging.

Publishing an FPWD is a bigger deal than publishing a WD. First, FPWD  
triggers a patent review clock where an ordinary working draft does  
not (the next step after FPWD to trigger a patent review time limit is  
Last Call). Thus I don't think fast track lazy consensus is  
appropriate for FPWD, as opposed to a normal Working Draft. And  
indeed, for the FPWD of the current HTML5 draft, we held a formal vote  
and even delayed some time after that for closer examination of  
objections from IBM and Microsoft reps, among others.

Second, for a new document to be published as a Working Draft, Sam has  
asked for at least three independent supporters. I don't think we've  
done that assessment for either of the documents you cite.

And finally, I don't think the author of either of the alternative  
drafts has stated their readiness to publish a First Public Working  
Draft yet.

While I'm sure all of the above obstacles can be overcome, I don't  
think we should miss our heartbeat requirement while waiting to deal  
with them.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 05:34:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:42 GMT