W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > September 2010

FYI: new NotInW3CSpecYet keyword added to bugzilla

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:32:14 +0900
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100914033211.GA7664@sideshowbarker>
This is an FYI to let members of the task force know that I added
a new NotInW3CSpecYet keyword to bugzilla -- for use in flagging
bugs for features that are not in the W3C HTML5 WD or editor's draft.

This keyword is free for anybody to use in flagging such bugs.

Some background on this:

I set up the HTML WG bugzilla (way back when) in part as a way to
provide a low barrier of entry for people to easily report typos
and editorial bugs and such. And an embedded comment form was
later added to make it even easier for people to submit such bug
reports and comments. And I think those two things have served us
well so far -- a lot of such bugs have been found and fixed due to

As a result of that, though, it creates the possibility that some
bugs end up going into bugzilla against features that are not in
any W3C spec version (and may never be). I think that's OK as long
as we have a way to identify those and distinguish them from bugs
that are against parts of the W3C HTML5 WD or editor's draft. So
that's what I created this keyword for.

So please keep in mind that this bugzilla instance has from the
beginning been a kind of shared, open resource (for example, it
intentionally has never required bug commenters to be members of
the HTML WG, but is open to anybody) and I think there is value to
us in trying to keep it that way as much as we can.

But at the same time, we need to have ways to distinguish
different classes of bugs from one another. The chief lowest-cost-
to-all-involved way that has proven useful in the past for doing
that is to mint new keywords when we see a need. So that's what
I've done again in this case, and I would like to ask that we give
it a try and see if it helps or not. Of course as with everything
we do, we need to periodically re-evaluate whether it's having the
intended effect or not. But that does mean giving it a chance for
a while first before deciding.


Michael(tm) Smith
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 03:32:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:44 UTC