- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:12:00 -0400
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)" <mike@w3.org>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
Laura Carlson wrote: > > PFWG's agreement and formal sign off is prudent if we want HTML 5 to > become a W3C Recommendation without accessibility related formal > objections. Paul, Maciej, and I have already discussed this. That will be sought anyway -- independent of whether this Task Force is formed or not. And you correctly point out the implications of us not doing so. If we accept that as a given, and given that there is agreement on the following eight points: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0415.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0420.html And given that this is the easiest way to address the patent scope issues(*), and given that this task force is probably the best way to achieve technical agreement, the hope was that we could simply proceed as an HTML Working Group task force. Yes, the optics are lousy, particularly given past history. No, it wouldn't have been my first choice -- if we had started this several months ago. So the question I would like to put on the table is this: if we can give assurances that we will seek PFWG signoff *before* we go to Last Call, is that enough to allow this Task Force to be created? - Sam Ruby (*) This is the complicated part. As an absurd example to illustrate the point: somebody working in an XML Working Group does not give up rights to video APIs simply because some other part of the W3C is working on such.
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 20:12:44 UTC