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

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

From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:15:10 -0400
Message-ID: <7c2a12e20910281315m134ab03csb15d7f1d3c6eb756@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Chou, Wu (Wu)" <wuchou@avaya.com>
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Chou, Wu (Wu) <wuchou@avaya.com> wrote:
> 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.

Thanks, I was unaware of that.  It seems like different WGs operate
differently here.

> 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.

Of course, the HTML5 Editor's Drafts are also subject to approval by
the whole group before they can become Working Drafts.  This (and more
stringent requirements to reach LC and CR) seem like fairly effective
checks on the power of the editor to me.  Certainly nothing will make
it to CR without full discussion within the Working Group, unless it's
so uncontroversial that no one challenges the editor's decision.  In
that case, I don't really see a problem with the WG not weighing in on
the issue, even if it's very substantive.
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 20:15:45 GMT

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