W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2010

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:36:21 -0800
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: <69981B6F-D42A-4EFD-AEB9-E4136A84DE31@apple.com>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com

On Dec 15, 2009, at 3:00 PM, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> 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.

Thanks for clarifying the position of the TAG. I think if Mike appends  
the collected RelaxNG to his draft, changes its status to non- 
normative, and requests FPWD publication, then it is highly likely to  
be published as a First Public Working Draft. The next action here is  
on Mike, so I hesitate to make a firm commitment without asking him,  
but as co-chair I would strongly encourage him to take these steps  
ASAP. Note: technically we will give Working Group members an  
opportunity to object, and it is possible that some may, but a Working  
Draft does not require consensus so I do not expect this to be an  

I don't think I can commit on behalf of the Working Group to publish  
the document as Last Call, nor do I think the Working Group itself can  
credibly pre-commit to that step. The current draft is incomplete and  
clearly not ready for Last Call without additional work. By my  
understanding of the W3C Process, we can't have a Last Call resolution  
now on a future draft that does not yet exist. But I believe I can say  
on behalf of the chairs that we will do our best to make sure Mike's  
document has every opportunity to progress. And I believe that most  
Working Group members would agree a non-normative syntax reference is  
a good thing in principle, though I can't say for sure that all will  
agree on the details of the final document.

>> 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.

Your clarification is agreeable, but subject to constraints on what  
the Working Group can firmly commit to as stated above. If you find  
the level of commitment expressed above to be sufficient, then I  
believe we have consensus.

Received on Monday, 4 January 2010 05:36:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:04 UTC