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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:27:05 -0400
Message-ID: <50852D89.5080902@intertwingly.net>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 10/22/2012 04:49 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>> 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.).
>
> I don't particularly care for this part of your reply.

Nor do I.

In addition to being disrespectful, it shows a lack of having fully read 
and understood both the plan and Jonas's comments.

In the (now approved) plan, there is a section on modularity:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#modularity

In this section, there is a subsection on "Extension specifications are 
first-class citizens".  It closes with the following sentence:

    In addition, we will work to find ways to promote these extensions
    as a part of a family of HTML5 specifications.

Jonas, and it seems Henri, are currently uncomfortable with this 
statement, despite the fact that in context "these extensions" refers to 
ones that are "vibrant", "active", "significant implementation 
traction", "community credibility", and "as having wide consensus".

I would like to work through this.  As an example, Henri seemed to think 
that somehow we were changing to make this automatic ("I object to 
taking an Extension Specification to FPWD simply when a WG participant 
offers a draft.") -- something we never said nor implied that we were 
going to do.

In the process, Henri made the suggestion "If there is to be promotion 
(which I don't see as a core activity for a Working Group), I think it 
would make more sense to promote things as being part of the Web 
Platform."  This suggestion is worth considering.

To turn this discussion more constructive, the problem that needs to be 
solved is the misconception that exists that the HTML5 specification is 
all that needs to be implemented (this never has been true, nor are we 
proposing to make it true now -- completely the opposite), and that if 
things aren't in the HTML5 specification browsers will begin to actively 
remove such support.  A concrete example of this can be found in the 
first paragraph of the following comment:

   https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14689#c18

Perhaps "promote" (which is indeed in the plan 2014) and "branding" 
(which is not) are too strong of words.  But if we could add some text 
to the HTML 5.n series of specifications (perhaps in the status 
section?) to make this specifications relationship to other 
specifications clearer, then this would be goodness.

>> 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.
>
> This doesn't seem to match the instructions from the WG chairs, who
> specifically requested feedback on this list, and not via AC reps.

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive options.  The charter has 
been updated and will soon be put out for review:

   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/

> / Jonas

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 11:27:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 October 2012 11:27:41 GMT