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

Re: Info from HTML5 editors: merging WHATWG patches

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:04:45 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2m=Oy5DppS-on5mYrkOGOSYrs-ECLHDQDnnv6qf9me63g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>> > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> (B1) branches with fixes for typos or that resolve bugs in our bug
>> >> tracker (i.e. we likely all appreciate that these should be applied).
>> >> (B2) branches with features that are either new, or for which I don't
>> >> know if we should merge them.
>> >> (B3) branches/patches with features that we decided to hold back from
>> >> HTML5 (also listed in [5]).
>> >
>> >
>> > I believe that, at this point in the process, any change that either (1)
>> > introduces a new feature or (2) would make a substantive technical
>> > change
>> > for which there is no related LC bug where that change is an agreed
>> > resolution should have explicit approval (i.e., resolution to that
>> > effect)
>> > by the WG.
>>
>> If the world were so easily black an white, it would be simple.
>>
>> > For me, a substantive change in this regard is any change that may
>> > affect
>> > conformance or constitutes a change at a syntactic level, e.g., a WebIDL
>> > change or a change to the set of defined elements, attributes or
>> > attribute
>> > values.
>>
>> I am assuming where such a WebIDL change is made because the spec is
>> different from browser implementations, it is a minor spec bug that is
>> being fixed and not worth a new feature branch. It will still be in
>> one of the branches classified as B1.
>
>
> Some WebIDL changes are more substantial than others. I would grant that
> adding a [TreatNullAs=EmptyString] is not necessarily worth bringing to the
> WG. On the other hand, adding a new interface member, changing its signature
> or type, etc., is worth bringing to the WG's attention (in some manner).
>
> Simply assuming that there is agreement among UA vendors for a given change
> is not sufficient unless there is some documentation trail pointing to that
> agreement. Further, the WG's members aren't simply UA vendors. Author tool
> vendors and content authors also have a significant stake in the WG's
> process and its results.
>
> I'm merely suggesting that the editors exercise caution (erring on the
> conservative side) when making clearly substantive changes if it falls into
> the categories I described above unless the WG has had an opportunity to
> weigh in on the matter. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see every
> change that is in a clearly gray area to take up the WG's time or process.
>
> I'm willing to agree to the editors making substantive changes they think
> are non-controversial, as long as there is a list of such changes available
> during the next LC or CR in a "Change History" section.

Thanks for your feedback - we'll take it on board.
If you could help us make the right decisions on the branches, that
would be much appreciated.
I'd prefer we get these right on a weekly basis rather than ending up
in a next LC / CR document from which we have to pull branches again.

Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Sunday, 9 September 2012 23:05:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 9 September 2012 23:05:34 GMT