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

Re: Timeline to Last Call

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 05:32:19 -0700
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Eliot Graff <eliotgra@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <EE3A4252-99D9-4F51-BFFD-19E702EBE1C7@apple.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>

On Sep 12, 2010, at 4:15 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:04:47 +0200, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> BTW, the Chairs are assuming that HTML5, Microdata, Canvas 2D Context and now the Polyglot specs will follow the timeline.  In addition the two specs that are dependent to the HTML5 spec ie the HTML5 differences and HTML: The Markup Language will also follow along the same timeline as the main HTML5 spec.
> I think HTML5 differences from HTML4 should not go to Last Call but remain a non-normative resource. I.e. something to be published as WG Note when HTML5 reaches Recommendation status.

WG Notes can have a Last Call (after which it goes straight to WG Note status), but I agree it is not necessary for that Last Call to happen simultaneous with HTML5 Last Call. In fact, it's probably bad because we don't want to freeze it until HTML5 is at REC, so we wouldn't want the Last Call to actually pass.

For "HTML: The Markup Language", it's not particularly essential for it to proceed on the same schedule as HTML5; it is dependent, but that just means it can't advance sooner, not that it can't advance later. So we will leave it up to the editor of this draft (Mike Smith) to decide whether to get on the Last Call bandwagon.

Received on Sunday, 12 September 2010 12:32:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:04 UTC