W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: [editing] Is this the right list to discuss editing?

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:05:00 -0500
Message-ID: <5123787C.8000509@nokia.com>
To: ext Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
CC: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
WebApps' last discussion about `group scope` and the HTML Editing spec 
was September 2011 [1]. At that time, WebApps agreed the Editing CG may 
use public-webapps since WebApps' charter then permitted WebApps to 
directly take on APIs that were removed from the HTML5 spec.

Robin volunteered to help with the editing and he prefers the HTMLWG be 
responsible for Technical Reports publishing. That works for me.

Re the discussion list, I am mostly indifferent. It would be OK with me 
if public-webapps continues to be the spec's discussion list (provided 
Robin and the editors track the provenance of contributions).

I also agree we should discuss our preferences with the HTMLWG.

-AB

[1] 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/1617.html>


On 2/19/13 4:17 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
> On 19/02/2013 05:56 , Travis Leithead wrote:
>> Alex, work on Editing APIs was ongoing in the Community Group
>> (http://www.w3.org/community/editing/) though their draft is just under
>> a year old.
>
> My recall is a bit rusty on that one, but I think that the situation 
> was that:
>
> • WebApps is not chartered to publish this, so a CG was created.
>
> • But having the discussion on the CG list seemed like a bad idea 
> since everyone is here, so the mailing list for discussion was decided 
> to be public-webapps.
>
> I actually pinged Aryeh about this a week or two ago, but I haven't 
> heard back. I'd be happy to take over as editor for this spec, it's a 
> feature I've wanted to have work right forever.
>
> In order to make that happen (assuming that Aryeh agrees, or doesn't 
> speak up), I propose the following:
>
> • Since I'm financed to work on HTML, transition this to an HTML 
> extension spec (this probably only requires a few changes to the header).
>
> • The discussion can stay here (wherever people prefer that I'm 
> already subscribed to — I really don't care).
>
> • The spec gets published through the HTML WG, since I believe it's 
> actually viably in scope there already.
>
> All of the above assumes you're all happy with it, and the HTML people 
> too. I reckon it could work though.
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 13:05:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:57 GMT