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

Re: ISSUE-81: representation-vs-resource - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:32:18 -0800
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <24E60789-1F9F-425B-882C-BBE49D7F4151@apple.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Hello Roy,

On Jan 6, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>> This issue has been open for two and a half months, and the only  
>> concrete proposal we have at this point is in the draft.  At this  
>> time the chairs would like to solicit volunteers to write Change  
>> Proposals.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/81
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#escalation
>>
>> If no Change Proposals are written by January 16, 2010 this issue  
>> will be closed without prejudice. (That's an extra 8 days over the  
>> usual one month deadline to account for the winter holidays.)
>
> It is nearly impossible to write a change proposal based on a
> moving target to fix a pervasive misuse of terms in the
> current draft.  I could write the changes, but that would
> effectively be forking HTML5 or replacing the current editor.
>
> I would like this issue to be postponed until after the changes
> already proposed have been committed.
>

The chairs discussed your comments on this issue today. We understand  
that it can be difficult to write a proper change proposal for an  
intrusive and wide-ranging change against a moving target. On the  
other hand, we don't want to let this issue remain open indefinitely,  
and it doesn't seem like there will be any obvious point when changes  
have stopped. We feel the following would be appropriate and  
sufficient for the Details section of a Change Proposal on this issue:

- Identify a specific revision of the HTML5 draft as a baseline.
- Describe in detail how to make the changes against that particular  
version.
- Indicate that analogous changes should be made if any of the spec  
changes.

It's possible that some of the text surrounding the term usage will  
change over time, but we would still consider the Change Proposal  
valid. If you'd like to volunteer to write a Change Proposal on that  
basis, please let us know, and indicate what kind of deadline would be  
appropriate.

Alternately, we can just allow this issue to be closed without  
prejudice, and it would still be an option to reopen the issue at a  
future time if someone actually submits a completed Change Proposal.  
That could be months from now when the spec may be more settled, if we  
haven't hit Last Call by then.

Either of those approaches would be ok with us. But we do not want to  
have the issue remain a blocker without a clear and reasonable deadline.


Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2010 02:32:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:12 UTC