W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2012

Re: CfC: Request transition of HTML5 to Candidate Recommendation

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 19:07:42 -0800
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5CC061E2-7EC6-43F3-B89F-D14E8EF847B4@gbiv.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On Nov 25, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> On 11/25/2012 06:18 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> Instead, the specification takes on a bizarre "Us vs The Man"
>> attitude
> 
> The specification has been developed in the open over a long period of time.  The current editors were chosen as they were felt to be people that could respond reasonably to requests for change.

AFAIK, the current editors have not edited that section.
They are free to respond reasonably to the requests I just made.

>> If the WG decides to advance the HTML5 specification to CR
>> without fixing these errors and inconsistencies, then please
>> consider this a formal objection.
> 
> Typically, the way this process starts is with one or more bug reports:
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v3.html#basic
> 
> Some of the issues you describe appear to be editorial in nature. Presumably those could be addressed during CR?
> 
> Others appear to be more substantive.  Ideally, the reporting of such would propose changes[1] that (if adopted) would remove the need for a Formal Objection.

We already have

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/56
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/81

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7687
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8207
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8264
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8906
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9035
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11380
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12543
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13721

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0585.html

I proposed changes that would remove the need for a formal
objection.  While the bug reporting system is useful and has been
used to file similar issues in the past, which were later closed
without action by the editor, I don't believe that bugzilla entries
are necessary for an objection to advancing to CR.  The CfC is
subject to the official W3C process and I believe that my email
is sufficient for that process, including enough technical detail
for the editors to resolve the objection if so desired.  I don't
have the time or energy right now to add any more, at least not
until some of the existing ones are addressed.  CR is supposed
to imply that such known issues have been resolved.

I believe the editors are fully capable of understanding my
objection without more process.  If necessary, I can help in the
production of a git patch next month if the discussion warrants it.

....Roy
Received on Monday, 26 November 2012 03:08:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:35 UTC