W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2009

Re: Courtesy notification: call for consensus on HTML normative language reference issues

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:00:35 -0500
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <paul.cotton@microsoft.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFAE23CE8C.E09A386B-ON8525768D.007C2327-8525768D.007E65E1@lotus.com>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> At TPAC, the TAG and HTML WG met jointly and discussed several 
> topics.  One of them was the notion of a normative language 
> reference. My take- 
> away from that session was that we had rough consensus on the following:
> 
> - The author-only view of the main document, plus the fact that
> it was actively maintained and reviewed by itself for quality, 
> was sufficient to largely satisfy the requirements for a 
> normative language reference.
> - There was no need to try to publish Mike's HTML: The Markup 
> Langauge draft as an additional normative spec, but it could be
> useful as a non- 
> normative reference guide to only the markup syntax of HTML5.

Thank you, Maciej, this is very timely.  At our F2F meeting last week 
(unapproved minutes of pertinent section at [1]), the TAG took note of 
[2], which is the proposal you reference for closing your issue 59 on 17 
December.  At our F2F, we agreed this resolution:

RESOLUTION: endorse the proposed disposition of HTML WG issue-59 in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0249.html  , i.e. 
the class=author view and the informative reference guide, provided the 
relaxng is appended to the informative reference guide, which will be 
published as a Working Draft and taken to Last Call

So, that is the formal position of the TAG.  My interpretation is that it 
aligns quite well, but not in every detail with your proposal as 
informally summarized above.  In particular, I believe we are in agreement 
that publication of what you call the "author-only view of the main 
document" is a key positive step, and we thank you for that.  Where I 
detect some lack of alignment is in the status of Mike's Markup Language 
Draft, which you put in the category "could be useful".  My interpretation 
of the TAG's resolution is that we would like to see a commitment that 
Mike's document will be published and maintained as a non-normative guide 
to the syntax, and we would additionally like to see included the RelaxNG 
grammar, perhaps as a (also non-normative) appendix.

> Therefore we are sending this notification and will extend the 
> call for consensus until January 7th, to give the TAG a 
> meaningful opportunity to review the issues and reply.

If the HTML working group finds the above proposal/clarification 
agreeable, then it seems to me that we have the consensus you are looking 
for.  If not, please alert us to which aspects of the proposed resolution 
are causing concern, and we will discuss further.  Thank you.

Noah

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/10-tagmem-minutes.html#item04
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0249.html

P.S. Tracker: I believe this email discharges my TAG ACTION-359.  I will 
now set its status to pending review.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
12/15/2009 02:16 PM
 
        To:     "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
        cc:     Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton 
<paul.cotton@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe 
Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Courtesy notification: call for consensus on HTML 
normative language  reference issues



At TPAC, the TAG and HTML WG met jointly and discussed several topics. 
One of them was the notion of a normative language reference. My take- 
away from that session was that we had rough consensus on the following:

- The author-only view of the main document, plus the fact that it was 
actively maintained and reviewed by itself for quality, was sufficient 
to largely satisfy the requirements for a normative language reference.
- There was no need to try to publish Mike's HTML: The Markup Langauge 
draft as an additional normative spec, but it could be useful as a non- 
normative reference guide to only the markup syntax of HTML5.

Based on this, we have issued a Call for Consensus to close the 
related HTML Working Group issues without prejudice:

ISSUE-59 - normative-language-reference - 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0249.html
ISSUE-67 - h:tml-parsing-dom - 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0248.html

Note: closing without prejudice simply means further changes in this 
area will not be treated as Last Call blockers by the HTML WG.

A member of the TAG asked for the TAG to be notified and given a 
chance to respond[1]. Therefore we are sending this notification and 
will extend the call for consensus until January 7th, to give the TAG 
a meaningful opportunity to review the issues and reply.

Regards,
Maciej



[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0369.html
Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2009 23:01:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:18 GMT