Re: Endgame

On 09/05/2013 15:04 , Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> As part of the W3C Headlights 2013 exercise [1] to set next major area
> of focus for W3C, I lead a task force (CG2WG) [2], chartered until July
> 2013, to determine which Community Groups and Business Groups should
> transition their work to a W3C Working Group.

The links Simon forgot to include are:

[1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Headlights2013
[2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/CG2WG

> I need to answer questions like:
> ------------------------------------------
> Is your Community Group or Business Group:
> * Active and ongoing and nearing completion
> * Inactive because it has completed its work
> * Active and ongoing and far from completion
> * Inactive because the original scope is no longer relevant or because
> the CG never got momentum
> ------------------------------------------
>
> There should probably be an "all of the above" option, right?

There really should. We can tell Coralie that :)

> Do we hope to transition this to a working group?  That would make me
> very happy (even without my participation), but I'm not sure if we're
> wanted.

I don't think that this is large enough to warrant a WG of its own. But 
I would very much like it to transition to a WG. It could go to CSS for 
sure, but it doesn't have to.

One place it could go to is the HTML WG. HTML defines several key parts:

     Navigating to a fragment identifier
 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/browsers.html#scroll-to-fragid

     The indicated part of the document
 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/browsers.html#the-indicated-part-of-the-document

The latter is also what defines how :target plugs in (I'd link to it, 
but I'd need css() for that).

You might be thinking "Why oh why would you want to do anything with the 
HTML WG?" and that's a good question. I think that there's one 
interesting motivation. We're planning to very soon run an experiment 
(assuming the Membership lets us) whereby proposed Extension 
Specifications to HTML can be published under CC-BY instead of the W3C 
restrictive document license. Also, the group is pretty civilised these 
days. (And being in HTML means I can more easily help.)

A few details:

     How to submit an extension spec (this one is pretty good to go)
     http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ExtensionHowTo

     Go Fork and Multiply, W3C Specifications Should Use an Open License
     http://www.berjon.com/blog/2013/04/w3c-open-license.html

WDYT?

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Received on Thursday, 9 May 2013 16:03:42 UTC