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: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:22:58 -0800
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <DAC5C7FF-FDC1-44D2-B24F-CC22170DD510@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Feb 15, 2010, at 3:36 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> ...
>> Thanks.
>> Nits:
>> "The working groups maintains a list of all bug reports that the  
>> editor has not yet tried to address and a list of issues for which  
>> the chairs have not yet declared a decision. The editor also  
>> maintains a list of all e-mails that he has not yet tried to  
>> address. These bugs, issues, and e-mails apply to all HTML  
>> specifications, not just this one."
>> The first link
>>  a list of all bug reports that the editor has not yet tried to  
>> address
>> produces zero results, so it appears something is wrong with the  
>> query part.
>> ...
>
> This is not fixed. Should I open a bug report?

Which spec? The bug links all work for me.

>
>> "These bugs, issues, and e-mails apply to all HTML specifications,  
>> not just this one."
>> s/HTML specifications/specification/
>> unless we want to discuss what exactly an "HTML specification" is :-)
>
> This is not fixed. Should I open a bug report?

The actual situation is that HTML5, HTML Microdata, and HTML Canvas 2D  
Context are using the same set of bug components right now. If you  
have a better term to refer to that set of three specs, feel free to  
suggest it, either by email or in the form of a bug. It would not be  
accurate to say "These bugs, issues and e-mails apply to all  
specifications", because it's not true that they apply to all  
specifications ever, all W3C specifications, or even all  
specifications published by this group. Just that set of three  
(currently).

>
>> Also, if we include links to BugZilla queries in the first place,  
>> why not make them specific to this draft?
>> Finally, more alignment with the sister specification (RDFa) would  
>> be good. It currently has:
>> "The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft  
>> does not imply endorsement by the W3C HTML Working Group or the W3C  
>> as a whole. In particular,
>>    * There are one or more alternate methods of adding data without  
>> using RDFa, such as [microdata].
>>    * There are discussions of alternate extensibility mechanisms,  
>> covered in [issue-41], which might allow other ways of integrating  
>> RDFa.
>>    * There is concern that continued development of this document  
>> belongs in a different working group."
>> which I think is very helpful in understanding the status of these  
>> documents.
>> ...
>
> Raised as <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9001>.

Instead of filing a bug about wording of the status section, could you  
please file bugs about the underlying issues? That is, what are the  
problems that are identified by these two statements:

    * There are one or more alternate methods of adding data without  
using RDFa, such as [microdata].
    * There is concern that continued development of this document  
belongs in a different working group." which I think is very helpful  
in understanding the status of these documents.

I would like to have bugs corresponding to those two statements, so we  
can track them and remove the issue markers when they are resolved. I  
would be against adding issue markers for issues where there is no  
defined path to resolving them.

(ISSUE-41 is already in the tracker so it doesn't need a new bug).

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 15 February 2010 21:23:32 GMT

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