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

Splitting out sections and submitting bugs (canvas, Microdata, et al) Re: Proposal to publish HTML5 and vocab specs

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:00:29 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270910280900u82b6f67s7dc250a59a83adbb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
>
> I'm aware of such a change proposal for Microdata.  I'm aware of work being
> done to split out canvas, and this needs a consolidated set of rationale,
> ideally in the form of a change proposal.
>

I agree, the Canvas proposal is not complete. One part of it is done,
the 2D API split, but not the clean up in HTML5, or working through
some of the interface issues. I asked a question on this, but wasn't
answered, so am not sure what's happening with Canvas.

Is there anyway we can get this entered as tasks in the Tracker?

> Are there other sections that need to be removed or split out?  If so, now
> would be an ideal time to bring them forward, ideally first as bugs, and
> then as issues if the resolution is not satisfactory.  If not, why are we
> having this discussion?
>

Agree. I'm spending November devoted to one thing: writing up bugs,
escalating bugs to issues, and *writing change proposals (and the
MathML comments). I know others are doing the same.

Now is the time to do these things. I'd like to propose something,
first, though.

I would remove my objection to another heart beat document if the
HTML5 author agrees not to make any additional changes to the document
that can't be specifically tied back to a change request or bug
entered into the W3C bug database. If the document is stable enough to
be a WhatWG document, there shouldn't be anything about the document
that is currently undergoing change _except_ for changes based on
feedback. And that feedback should be documented, formally.

The changes should not be occurring because of loose discussions in
IRC, or hallways discussions when it comes to that. They shouldn't be
_just_ in the WhatWG database, either, or occurring spontaneously.
There should be a an accountability of changes to the document from
this moment on.

Is this a fair request to make?

>>>
>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>

Shelley
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:00:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:51 GMT