W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: editors comments in the W3C HTML5 specification

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:47:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4DA5D399.5080100@intertwingly.net>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 04/13/2011 04:57 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> I don not believe the W3C HTML5 specification is a notebook for Ian to
> scribble his personal opinions about changes he disagrees with.
>
> The W3C HTML5 specification is being littered with comments by the
> HTML5 editor,, these seem to appear whenever a working group decison
> does not go his way,  for example:
>
> [1]
> <!-- The following paragraph is not included in the WHATWG copy
> because it is wrong. For example, content models are not syntax. It's
> also unnecessary. What kinds of things are conformance requirements is
> explained in the previous section, which talks about RFC 2119. -->
>
> [2]
> <!--(the following is not included in the WHATWG spec for quality reasons)-->
>
> [3]
> <!--(there's no reason to convey<img>  elements with alt="" text as
> images to an AT)-->
> <!--(none of the following six rows make any sense)-->
>
> While i believe it is Ian hicksons right to add whatever comments he
> likes to his whatwg specification, I do not believe such comments are
> helpful or useful or correct in the the context of the W3C HTML5
> specification.
>
> I would ask Ian to remove such comments from the W3C HTML5
> specification, if he is unwilling then I ask the chairs advice on how
> to resolve this issue.

I'll note that this was expressed as an "if... then".  At the present 
time, I would rather not spend time evaluating speculative future 
possibilities.  I am, however, willing to place time bounds on this 
discussion.  The Last Call schedule[4] provides two period for overall 
review of the draft, and the first is from Apr 22 - May 8.  If this 
can't be resolved amicably with the editor by the end of that review 
period, I am confident that we can find W3C staff that would be willing 
to make any necessary adjustments to the draft prior to publication.

To assist with this review, I have been linking the commits to the 
decisions on the issue status page:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html?sort=Next+Action#ISSUE-027

> [1] http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5997&to=5998

I'll note that in this case the decision passed by Amicable Resolution:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0016.html

If any member of this working group is aware of any inconsistencies, I 
encourage them to speak up during the ample periods upon which we call 
for Alternate or Counter Proposals or for Amicable Resolution. 
Additionally, bug reports citing specific problems may be entered at any 
time.

> [2] http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5995&to=5996
> [3]http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5995&to=5996

- Sam Ruby

[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0759.html
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 16:47:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:24 UTC