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

Re: [HTMLWG] CfC: Adopt "Plan 2014" and make some specific related decisions

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:46:43 +0800
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+cRHhBFJTt-hrojXx6H8EC_zq6nb9yTJ=_Eu+JR+9aoyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Oct 12, 2012 4:25 AM, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/11/2012 12:02 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I object to taking an Extension Specification to FPWD simply when a WG
> >> participant offers a draft.
> >
> >
> > We have never done that.  We have always done a call for consensus prior
> to publishing.
>
> The problem with making FPWD a checkpoint for "will receive HTML
> branding" is that a draft can change dramatically after that. It
> basically means that if a draft at some point receives the HTML stamp,
> it will then carry that recognition no matter what changes are made to
> it.
>

What's all this blarney about "HTML branding". Give it a break (i.e., go
read the W3C Process Document, get a life, etc.).

The HTML WG will follow the well established process rules. It is up to the
W3C communications team to spin it however they like. It is up to the
market to do whatever is desired in the field.

The so-called "Extension Specs" are products being developed by the HTML
WG. If you don't like it, take it up with your AC Rep.
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 00:47:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 October 2012 00:47:32 GMT