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

Re: Moving HTML+RDFa draft issues to HTML WG bug tracker

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:27:04 -0700
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-id: <34FC23D2-EAA8-495B-BCAE-DCAD8BD82593@apple.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>

On Sep 26, 2009, at 7:34 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:

> As promised to Paul Cotton on last Thursday's telecon, here is the  
> link
> to the RDFa Task Force Issue Tracker:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/open
>
> This is actually the Semantic Web Deployment issue tracker, which
> contains a product called "RDFa". I believe that Paul and Maciej would
> prefer that all of the current HTML+RDFa issues noted on the RDFa  
> wiki:
>
> http://rdfa.info/wiki/html5-rdfa-wd-issues
>
> are entered as bugs in the HTML WG bug tracker:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/report.cgi?x_axis_field=component&y_axis_field=product&z_axis_field=&query_format=report-table&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&product=HTML+WG&component=HTML%2BRDFa+(editor:+Manu+Sporny)&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&format=table&action=wrap&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=
>
> before being escalated to ISSUES in the HTML WG or RDFa ISSUE tracker.
> Ben had asked what we wanted the bug reporting process to be for
> entering and escalating bugs while working with the HTML WG. Here's  
> the
> current plan:
>
> 1. All HTML+RDFa WD spec bugs should be entered in the HTML WG  
> tracker.
>   I'll try to close them out as quickly as I can.
> 2. If I close a bug and the submitter feels that the bug was not
>   addressed, and it is clear that I won't address the submitter's
>   concerns, the submitter should raise the item as an ISSUE on the  
> HTML
>   WG or RDFa TF ISSUE tracker (URLs listed above).
> 3. Once an ISSUE is raised on the HTML WG or RDFa TF tracker, the
>   respective group should formally address the issue and create
>   a resolution.
> 4. Once there is a resolution to an ISSUE, the HTML+RDFa specification
>   will be updated to reflect that resolution.
>
> To ensure that we don't drop any of these bugs or issues on the floor,
> I'm volunteering to keep an eye on the bugs and issues as they make
> their way through both the HTML WG and RDFa TF systems.

That sounds about right to me. However, while it's ok to track things  
in the RDFa TF issue tracker, I'm not sure that should be recommended  
as an escalation path. That would make sense for issues to be  
addressed in XHTML+RDFa, since that is an RDFa TF deliverable, but HTML 
+RDFa is being published by the HTML WG, so any issues escalated on  
that should be decided by HTML WG resolution. I don't think it's  
correct process for issues on an HTML WG deliverable to be resolved by  
the RDFa TF. Our hope, of course, is that most problems can be  
resolved without having to escalate them at all.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Saturday, 26 September 2009 19:27:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:08 UTC