W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > October 2013

Re: What do we do with picture?

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:25:03 +0200
Message-ID: <5260FE6F.3010402@w3.org>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
CC: public-respimg@w3.org
On 17/10/2013 16:28 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> The Editors of the <picture> spec been under pressure from the HTML
> Working Group Chairs to take some action with regards to picture. We
> can continue to move it forward along the recommendation track or we
> can "end-of-life" it by publishing it as a Note. In light of the
> src-n proposal, I'm inclined for us to publish it as a Note. The
> rationale being that src-n does exactly the same things that
> <picture> was doing, but overcomes the shortcomings with <picture>

If you feel that <picture> has run its course, then by all means ship it 
as a Note (the use cases certainly will be). But there is no rush.

With much respect for our esteemed HTML chairs, if you are currently in 
the middle of thinking about srcN, if there is still interest in 
<picture>, there is no need to make an immediate decision. I certainly 
wouldn't go with anything that looks final unless you're reasonably sure.

If you allow me to lean back into my armchair and puff on my pipe, I'll 
give you some Process exegesis.

A long, long time ago, W3C groups were pretty much all member-only (with 
a comments list for the community). The "Heartbeat Requirement", which 
states that drafts must be published at least every three months and is 
the reason why you are being asked to push <picture> along, was instated 
essentially as an Aulde School Living Standard policy.

As most good ideas it can turn into a meaningless automatism after the 
reasons behind it have been forgotten. I think that it should be noted 
that given the availability and broad distribution of a public editors' 
draft, the Heartbeat Requirement becomes meaningless.*

So at the end of the day, please don't frame this as "we need to take 
some action with regards to <picture>". Sure enough, if <picture> 
becomes an abandoned path that should be published far and wide to avoid 
confusion from people who will stumble over it. But the decision should 
be made on the merits of the case, and not because of a vestigial branch 
of Process.


* Note that this does not mean zero snapshot. You still need at least 
three (FPWD, LC, REC) in order for the patent policy to be effective. 
Those cannot be eliminated.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 09:25:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:12:40 UTC