- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:50:51 -0800
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Astounding -----Original Message----- From: Larry Masinter Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 10:58 AM To: 'Philippe Le Hegaret' Cc: Dan Connolly; Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org); Carl Cargill Subject: RE: Documents not in scope for HTML-WG This is just one little issue in the big picture. But I don't see any reason to give in, since there are simple remedies. =============================================== A Working Group charter MUST include: .. The nature of any deliverables (technical reports, reviews of the deliverables of other groups, or software), expected milestones, and the process for the group participants to approve the release of these deliverables (including public intermediate results)." The working group chairs propose to publish several new documents as deliverables. These deliverables not in the charter, and do not have expected milestones. This is more than just a "scope" question. (I'm sure you can stretch the scope to cover how to eat cheese as an evolution of HTML4 if you want to.) I can think of two possible remedies: 1) update the "Status of This Document" of these documents so that it is clear they are not currently (until a charter update) deliverables of W3C HTML WG. 2) update the charter to include these deliverables, with milestones 1: Updating the "Status of This Document" of these documents requires only someone (the editor, with direction of the chairs) to edit the documents before they are published. I offered edits which were made to the HTML5+RDFa document but not the others. The working group chairs have refused to request this change. 2: Updating the charter would require establishing expected milestones for these documents, and then the director to notify the W3C Advisory Committee of the charter change; the rationale could be to split up the large document into pieces that can be reviewed. Again, since this is the intent, and there is general agreement to doing this, there should be little difficulty accomplishing this charter change. The working group chairs have refused to pursue a charter update. I think there remain concerns about the actual milestones for progressing these documents, because of contentious issues like distributed extensibility and its effect on the metadata proposals, and accessibility for canvas. But addressing those are crucial responsibilities for the working group chairs to address, as required by the W3C process. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 18:51:29 UTC