W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: CfC: Publish HTML5, RDFa heartbeats and Microdata, 2D Context and H:TML as FPWDs

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 05:12:14 -0800
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <D4B603CC-67A3-41E9-8046-060BCD4DB2C0@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Feb 14, 2010, at 4:53 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> ...
>>> That sounds *technically* plausible, but... Do we really want to  
>>> publish documents that have open issues attached to "Status of  
>>> this Document"???
>> No, I am assuming there are substantive issues with parts of the  
>> spec, and that expressing them as bugs (and, if necessary, issues)  
>> would result in the proper status markers.
>
> So yes or no then? Do you think it would be appropriate to have  
> issue markers on the Status section for FPWD?

If the status section is the most appropriate place for the issue  
marker, then sure. It would be better, in my opinion, to put the issue  
marker next to the relevant section of the draft, if any. But it's  
really up to whoever adds the marker tags to the tracker issue.

>
> > ...
>>> If this text is OK for RDFa, why isn't it OK for Microdata? Could  
>>> you please elaborate?
>>>
>>> We very clearly decided last month that Microdata and RDFa+in-HTML  
>>> should have the same status. The Status section should reflect  
>>> that. I'm not married to the exact wording, but I'd like to see  
>>> consistency in both drafts.
>> Manu chose to use that wording after hearing people's feedback on  
>> the status section. I don't think treating both drafts equally  
>> means we should order Ian to change his status wording to be the  
>> same as what Manu used, nor do I think we should order Manu to use  
>> the same wording
>
> What I'm asking for is that the W3C Team, which I was told is  
> responsible for this Section, puts in equivalent text.

Indeed, the W3C Team is the ultimate owner of the status section for  
published Working Drafts, though not for Editor's Drafts. I do not  
have the power to give them orders. If they wanted my advice though,  
I'd tell them to remove any issue markers for issues that have not  
been reported to the Working Group, because if an issue is important  
enough to be flagged in the draft itself, then surely it is important  
enough to be reported as a bug. I would also point out that if the  
Team adds an issue marker without a corresponding Working Group issue,  
then there's no process for ever resolving the underlying issue. I'm  
assuming that the reason to flag these issues in the status is that  
someone really cares about getting them resolved.

But anyway, the Team will do what they do. If you want there to be  
issue markers in the input we give to the Team before they do their  
final edits, I suggest you report the issues to the Working Group first.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 13:12:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:01 GMT