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

Responses to Last Call survey objections

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 12:12:40 -0700
Message-id: <E429D50A-BF35-478D-8AED-4441A6F5C514@apple.com>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Dear HTML Working Group,

As previously announced, all 6 of the Working Drafts in our recent Last
Call survey have surpassed the threshold to go to Last Call, in some
cases by far. Even though the WG has proceeded over objections, we would
like to take the time to address all objections entered in the hopes
that at least some objectors are willing to put aside their objections
to proceeding to Lat Call.

In many cases, objections raised were specific technical issues with the
contents of a given draft. Given the preference expressed by many to
proceed to Last Call, and the previously announced cutoff for bugs to be
treated as pre-LC review comments, it seems most of these can adequately
be handled as Last Call comments. We strongly urge those who responded
to the poll to ensure that their comments are captured in bugzilla.

Another common occurrence was remarks that particular drafts should
proceed to eventually become WG Notes rather than continuing down the
REC track. The Chairs agree that the WG should have the final say on
which documents proceed along the REC track and which are Note track. We
have not yet fully defined a process for this, but will do so:
<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12776>. In any case, we
believe the correct first step is filing a bug in bugzilla. We have
already done so for requests along these lines that were part of a
Formal Objection.

However, there is precedent for a document going to Last Call prior to
publication as a WG Note. Therefore, we do not see these issues as in
conflict with proceeding to Last Call. It will remain for the WG to
decide each draft's ultimate status.


== HTML5 ==

Julian Reschke
- Objected that the draft is changing during the survey. We subsequently
provided links to stable versions. Subsequently, Julian did not withdraw
his objection, but nor did he give a basis for why it would still stand.
We consider this addressed.
- Objected that the spec would need a long period of stability to
determine whether to go to Last Call. Last Call itself will provide such
a period of stability for purposes of
review, and we hope this suffices for Julian.

Danny Ayers
- Objected that the spec is really stable enough to move to the next
level, but did not feel strongly. We acknowledge this objection and ask
him to submit any specific problems that he is concerned about as Last
Call comments. At the same time, since the vast majority of those
participating in the survey wanted to proceed to LC, we feel we must
proceed.

Karl Dubost
- We are not totally sure we fully understand this comment or whether it
is even an objection. Karl does say there are still issues - we
encourage him to record specific issues as LC feedback.

Philippe Le Hegaret, Judy Brewer, Janina Sajka, Sally Cain, John Foliot
- Asked us to report which requirements have not been fulfilled, or
which dependencies have not been satisfied, in the status section,
particularly accessibility dependencies. We believe this is a reasonable
request and can be accommodated through appropriate wording in the
status sections of the LC drafts.

Daniel Glazman, Gez Lemon, Joshue O Connor, Geoff Freed, Monika Trebo
- Objected that the (reopened) longdesc issue is not resolved and that
longdesc is not in. After discussion with the PFWG Chair, the Team, and
the Director, we have concluded that it is best to proceed with this
issue still open, give a clear indication of that status, and expedite
the processing of the reopened issue during Last Call. The relevant issue is
<http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-030>


Daniel Glazman
- Objected based on <ins> and <del> being allowed at both block and
inline levels. We encourage him to file a bug, if there is not one
already. This seems like the type of feedback that can be addressed
during LC.
- Objected about <style scoped> being insufficiently defined, though he
likes the feature. We encourage him to file bugs regarding the
insufficient definition, to be fielded during LC.
- Objected that <a name> is deprecated. There is already a bug: 
<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12334>. We advise 
Daniel that this bug will be processed during LC. This issue does
not seem more severe than other likely LC issues. 
- Objected that the draft defines some CSS pseudo-classes, including
:ltr and :rtl. We encourage Daniel to file these issues as bugs. It
should also be noted that :ltr and :rtl were added at the request of the
I18N WG, so they should be kept in the loop on future coordination on
this issue. We also encourage WG members to submit any new
pseudo-classes to the CSS WG for discussion.
- Objected that the disabled DOM attribute on style and link has no
markup equivalent. This should be filed as a bug and processed as an LC
comment.
- Said he "can list tons of problems" in addition. Please do! We need
the feedback.
- Objected that dependencies with CSS WG are not satisfied. We note that
proceeding to Last Call does not require a WG to satisfy all
dependencies and requirements. We will take an expansive view of what
constitutes a dependency, and any failures to satisfy dependencies
should be reported to the WG via bugzilla.
- Indicated a belief that "a LCWD is clean and stable enough so there is
a large expectation that the document can move to CR with minor
modifications". This is not the understanding we have from consulting
with the Team and examining previous Last Calls; rather, we expect only
that the document is mature enough to merit very wide review, including
from other WGs.
- Cited several issues that were reported in 2001 or between 2001 and
now. Regrettably, the current HTML WG does not have organizational
continuity with the past HTML WG, which became the XHTML2 WG and was
subsequently disbanded. We do not necessarily have clear records of
long-past feedback. However, we will be happy to take up any comments
reported against our current drafts, and we apologize if
the organizational discontinuity led to old feedback being overlooked.

Rich Schwerdtfeger
- Voted yes but requested that bug 11893
<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11893> should be 
processed beforeadvancing further. We confirm that this is already being
tracked as a Last Call bug.

Gez Lemon, Joshue O Connor, Geoff Freed
- Objected based on alt validation decisions. We remind them of their
opportunity to submit a reopen request or contribute to someone else's
reopen request for these issues. At the present time, they are resolved
by WG decisions.

John Foliot, Laura Carlson, Joshue O Connor
- Believe it is wrong to call this "Last Call" instead of "Request for
Public Comments".The W3C Advisory Board manages the evolution of the W3C
Process Document. We can pass this feedback along to them, or better
yet, these WG Members can do so directly. In addition, the status
section will likely make clear that this Last Call may not be the last word.

John Foliot
- Asked for removal of the "Work in Progress" advisory as a condition of
his approval. We encourage John to file a bug. Meanwhile, we have ample
support for advancing the document as is.
- Wants to know what the duration of the public comment period will be,
before the draft actually moves to LC. We have already publicly stated
that the period will be 10 weeks and posted a timeline beyond that:
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0162.html>

Wayne Carr
- Asked for statement "The W3C HTML working group actively pursues
convergence with the WHATWG, as required by the W3C HTML working group
charter" to be changed or removed. There is an existing issue on this,
which will be processed as part of Last Call feedback.
 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/151>

Laura Carlson
- Objected that accessibility dependencies are not satisfied. This will
be reflected in the status section.
- Objected that people with disabilities may have trouble using
bugzilla. We will do everything we can to help such folks enter their
comments and follow progress. There is a bug recording this concern:
<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10525>

Leif Halvard Silli
- Said "A number of authoring conformance issues, including
accessibility related attribute issues, ought to be solved before moving
to Last Call Working Draft status." We encourage him to report such
issues during Last Call, if they are not already reported.


== HTML+RDFa ==

There were many groups of similar objections:

Simon Pieters, James Graham, Henri Sivonen, Boris Zbarsky, Shawn Medero,
Tab Atkins
- Objected based on complexity, prefix-based indirection and xmlns. We
note that this issue has already been decided by the WG, and encourage
them to submit a reopen request or contribute to the one in progress. If
any problems are not captured by these issues, they should report them. Here
is the relevant Working Group Decision: 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0689.html>
- Objected that implementations do not match the spec. We note that bugs
asking to make the spec match popular implementations are acceptable and
indeed desirable as LC feedback.

Raghavan Gurumurthy, Matthew MacKenzie, Vincent Hardy, Anand Samuel Edwin
- Asked for relationship between Microdata and RDFa to be resolved. We
note that the WG has already addressed this topic, in an issue decision
that both would be published as standalone drafts. The WG explicitly
declined to pick a winner between these two technologies. Formal
Objections or requests to reopen are still possible. And bugs may be
filed about specific issues.
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/att-0218/issue-76-decision.html>

Daniel Glazman, Karl Dubost, James Graham, Charles McCathieNevile
- Objected on the basis that browsers won't implement this. If this is
the case, and if browsers are a relevant conformance class, then
presumably the spec will never be able to exit CR, so if this prediction
comes true, it will be a self-solving problem. We encourage specific bug
reports on issues that block implementability to be filed.

== HTML Microdata ==

Daniel Glazman
- Thought the mechanisms in the document were unnecessary and questioned
the need for their existence. We encourage him to file bugs.

Raghavan Gurumurthy, Matthew MacKenzie, Vincent Hardy, Anand Samuel Edwin
- Asked for relationship between Microdata and RDFa to be resolved. We
note that the WG has already done so, in an issue decision that both
would be published as standalone drafts.
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/att-0218/issue-76-decision.html>

Dan Brickley
- Suggested publishing as a Note rather than REC-track. We note that a
Last Call can precede publication as a Note rather than REC and there is
precedent for this. See comments about Note vs. REC status below since
this was in several comments applied to multiple drafts.

Wayne Carr
- Asked for statement "The W3C HTML working group actively pursues
convergence with the WHATWG, as required by the W3C HTML working group
charter" to be changed or removed. There is an existing issue on this
which will be fielded during LC: <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/151>.

== HTML Canvas 2D Context ==

Raghavan Gurumurthy, Mayank Kumar, Matthew McKenzie, Anand Samuel Edwin
- Voted yes but suggested that Canvas should reference SVG more and
inconsistencies in drawing models should be resolved. We encourage them
to file bugs and/or report issues to SVG WG.

Simon Pieters
- Voted yes but has reservations about caretBlinkRate. We note that this
was a WG decision and he can get involved in one of the efforts to
request reopening. The decision is here:
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0271.html>

Edward O'Connor
- Voted yes but requested resolution of problems caused by ISSUE-131
decision during LC. We encourage him to submit or contribute to a reopen
request. Progress on gathering new information is here:
<http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/new-information-status.html#ISSUE-131>


Richard Schwerdfeger
- Voted yes but indicated there are accessibility issues. We encourage
him to report these.

Wayne Carr
- Asked for statement "The W3C HTML working group actively pursues
convergence with the WHATWG, as required by the W3C HTML working group
charter" to be changed or removed. There is already an issue on this topic.
<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/151>

Charles McCathieNevile
- Voted yes but indicated possibility of raising bugs/issues during LC.
We encourage him to do so.

Janina Sajka
- Indicated that there are accessibility issues. We encourage her to
report these.


== HTML/XHTML Compatibility Authoring Guidelines ==

Simon Pieters, James Graham, David Baron, Henri Sivonen, Karl Dubost,
Shawn Medero, Edward O'Connor, Tab Atkins, John Drinkwater, David
Singer, Daniel Glazman, Lachlan Hunt, Eric Carlson, Charles
McCathieNevile, Mike Taylor
- Indicated that they think this document should be Note-track, not
REC-track, since it imposes no novel normative requirements and simply
reports the implications of other specs. We note that going to Last Call
does not necessarily indicate a commitment to REC-track as
opposed to Note. We will ensure that the WG has a fair opportunity to
decide whether this document is REC-track or Note-track in the future.
We hope this addresses these concerns.

Note: Lachlan Hunt made the above objection as a Formal Objection, and
we have recorded it on the Formal Objections page for future
consideration by the Director:
<http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html>


== HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives ==

Simon Pieters, James Graham, Henri Sivonen, Boris Zbarsky, Edward
O'Connor, Tab Atkins, Daniel Glazman, Lachlan Hunt, Eric Carlson,
Charles McCathieNevile, Judy Brewer
- Objects to publishing as REC-track instead of as Note, since it is a
"techniques" document. See below.

Henri Sivonen, Edward O'Connor, Lachlan Hunt, Eric Carlson
- Object to the fact that this document claims to normatively replace
sections of other deliverables. We advise them to file a bug on that
statement if it is objectionable.

Note: Lachlan Hunt made the above two objections as a Formal Objection,
and we have recorded them on the Formal Objections page for future
consideration by the Director:
<http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html>

Danny Ayers, Monika Trebo
- Believes that this should be merged into the main spec, resolving any
conflicts in the process. We encourage them to file bugs on the
conflicts if they wish to pursue this goal. We also note the following
decision relevant to this topic:
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0453.html>

Janina Sajka, Judy Brewer
- Object that this is not the appropriate WG to decide on what is an
appropriate alternative text representation (perhaps WCAG WG is right).
If the editor of this document would like to move it to a different
venue, we are open to discussing that with him and with the WCAG WG
Chairs. At this time, there seems to be ample support for proceeding to
Last Call within this WG.

Note: Janina's objection above is a Formal Objection, and we have
recorded it on the Formal Objections page for future consideration by
the Director: <http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html>

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2011 19:13:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:32 GMT