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

Re: CfC addendum: Status wording for HTML5 Edition for Web Authors

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:23:34 +0300
To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1308039814.6548.2.camel@shuttle>
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 23:45 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> There has been a lively discussion on the Call for Consensus to publish the HTML5 Edition for Web Authors as a proper Working Draft. Some objected to publication as a normative document, some objected if the document was *not* marked normative. There were several suggestions for text to put in the status objection that might satisfy both sets of objections.
> At this time, the Chairs would like to hear from the group on whether these status proposals are satisfactory. If you find one or more of the following options unacceptable, and would object to publication of the HTML5 Edition for Web Authors with that status text, please reply to this message and state your objection, as soon as possible. Alternately, if anyone has other concrete proposals for status wording, please submit them as soon as possible.
> Option 1
> "This document is an automated redaction of the full HTML5 specification. As such, the two documents are supposed to agree on normative matters concerning Web authors. However, if the documents disagree, this is a bug in the redaction process and the unredacted full HTML specification takes precedence. Readers are encouraged to report such discrepancies as bugs in the bug tracking system of the HTML WG."

I'm OK with this text. :-)

> Option 2
> "These two specifications are generated from common base text and are intended to be entirely consistent. Both are normative and authoritative. With respect to any matters on which they (unexpectedly) disagree, there is a bug in at least one, and neither specification is authoritative with respect to the point(s) of disagreement. In such cases we expect to resolve the bug by publishing versions that are changed to be consistent."

I object to this text, because it implies that a bug might cause the
author version to be correct while the full version is incorrect. This
class of error is highly implausible due to the nature of the automated
redaction process, so it doesn't make sense to cast doubt over the
intentionality of the content of the full version when there are
redaction bugs.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 08:24:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:14 UTC