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

Aryeh,

Just try to better understand your clarification on the editor's role
for specs, as I am a current editor at W3C WS-RA WG on four standard
specs, i.e. WS-Eventing, etc. I believe: "Editors normally have the
right to change Editor's Drafts unilaterally" must subject to two
constraints: a) the editor's change is to implement the WG consensus,
and b) it should not introduce any new semantics in the spec that are
beyond that. 

An editor's role to a standard spec should be truly "editorial", and the
Editor's draft has to subject to WG and W3C approval and endorsement for
acceptance. I assume this is the norm for all editors working on W3C
specs, and it is the way we operate in WS-RA WG.

Thanks,

- Wu Chou.

Wu Chou, IEEE Fellow, Ph.D. | Director |Avaya Labs Research | AVAYA |
233 Mt. Airy Road| Rm. 2D48 | Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 | Voice/Fax:
908-696-5198 / 908-696-5401 | wuchou@avaya.com
<blocked::mailto:wuchou@avaya.com> 

 -- endorsed only by the editor, not necessarily the working group or
the W3C.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org
<mailto:public-html-request@w3.org> ] On Behalf Of Aryeh Gregor
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:57 PM
To: Shelley Powers
Cc: Sam Ruby; Julian Reschke; Jirka Kosek; Ian Hickson;
public-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Splitting out sections and submitting bugs (canvas,
Microdata, et al) Re: Proposal to publish HTML5 and vocab specs

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Shelley Powers
<shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Just to clarify your suggestion, the editor would still be the one who
decides how to respond to bugs filed in the W3C Bugzilla, right?  So
rather than just committing a change, he would have to create a change
request in the W3C Bugzilla, post a response there accepting the
request, and then commit the change?  I'm not clear on what practical
benefit this offers to anyone.

It also isn't the practice in any other W3C Working Group I'm aware of.
Editors normally have the right to change Editor's Drafts unilaterally,
which is why they're called Editor's Drafts -- endorsed only by the
editor, not necessarily the working group or the W3C.