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

Re: HTML.next and Rechartering

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:45:56 -0600
To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Cc: "HTML WG LIST" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vz2j2u0iwxe0ny@widsith.local>
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:12:22 -0600, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>  

> I don't think a spec-wide "Last Call" draft or period helps this purpose  
> and thus perhaps that aspect/phase of the process should itself be  
> called into question.

It has been, and is under discussion (as you know, having been explicitly  
invited to attend such discussion). The HTML working group isn't really  
the forum where such discussions should take place if you want to be sure  
they are noted.

If you work for a W3C member, you can talk to your AC rep. You could also  
send feedback directly on the process document, as outlined there -  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:

>> 3) To be able to publish post-HTML5 delieverables, we will have to  
>> change the charter of the Working Group. There are two possible tracks  
>> we can take:
>>    A) Come up with a detailed definition of the requirements, scope,  
>> and expectations for our next-generation deliverables, and cast that as  
>> a new charter.
>>    B) Update the current charter and give a fairly loosely defined  
>> scope for post-HTML5 deliverables.
>> Option A is much more clear about the next phase of our work, which is  
>> helpful in some ways, but it may require longer discussion to be clear  
>> about the scope. Option B likely requires less careful wording and  
>> negotiation. There is some interest in completing rechartering by the  
>> time of TPAC 2011. To achieve that, we'd have to have a draft charter  
>> ready in 3-5 weeks. We have W3C staff members who can help with the  
>> drafting.
> Realistically, in 3-5 weeks, I don't think you can achieve 3.A)

Agreed. I am not sure that we *need* a formal working draft yet (which of  
course also has an important role in W3C's patent policy), so I am not  
sure what the rush is to de get rechartering done, rather than an  
extension to complete the work and authority to *begin* sketching what  
goes into HTML next.

> Also I wonder why we'd want to put a restriction on the features that
> we want to add to HTML5.

Because there are many industries where people make contracts and  
statements of work, and need a stable target to sign up to.

> I think it's more productive to keep the
> features open and just continue working on the spec. Which is in fact
> already happening at WHATWG and it's good to stay in sync.

There are important use cases for a published, finished version. Although  
the latest and greatest may not be in it, unless Ian did something  
completely against his espoused guiding principles, it is likely that what  
is in that version will be reliable, and stable, and it is clear that for  
many people it is more than sufficient to meet their requirements.



Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lĉrer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Thursday, 11 August 2011 21:47:00 UTC

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