Re: FYI: new NotInW3CSpecYet keyword added to bugzilla

John,

Are you making a sincere request to file bugs against Rob's HTML 4.1 in W3C bugzilla, or are you just trying to prove that the policy is bad?

If the former, then Rob should either submit it as an HTML WG Editor's Draft, or to ask the Chairs to allow bug tracking on the W3C bugzilla without submitting the draft to the WG, along with a reason we should allow this. By my understanding of W3C Process, it is within discretion of the chairs to accept reasonable requests. But we're not likely to support tracking bugs in a place where the editor of the relevant document does not intend to look.

If your goal is to prove that the policy is wrong, then you may have better luck if you make your case in a more straightforward way.

Regards,
Maciej


On Sep 14, 2010, at 8:53 AM, John Foliot wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> 
>> If Rob wanted to submit this draft to the Working Group, we would give
>> it due consideration. If this draft was accepted as a W3C draft, but
>> Rob wanted to still maintain a separate draft that had some extra
>> material, we would probably be inclined to let bugs on that extra
>> material go in bugzilla too.
>> 
>> Currently, this particular document has no relation to any W3C draft,
>> so it doesn't seem particularly useful to track its issues in W3C
>> space.
> 
> It is worth pointing out that WebSRT has no relation to any W3C Draft
> either, nor has it been submitted to this or any other W3C Working Group
> for consideration AFAIK (and when it comes to media in HTML5 I like to
> think I am following along pretty closely). In fact it was for this reason
> that Michael created the new keyword of "NotInW3CSpecYet" - because WebSRT
> is NOT IN THE W3C SPEC YET ("...and may never be, and that is not under
> the HTML WG decision policy and may never be.") 
> 
> WebSRT, like Rob's HTML 4.1 is the work product of essentially one author,
> and in fact HTML 4.1 has been crafted very much like WebSRT, where *at
> this time* the author is the final arbitrator of what stays and what goes,
> and neither are (I believe) under the current W3C IP policy rules that
> cover HTML5. The fact that Rob's work is less known amongst developers
> than WebSRT should not be the grounds for consideration.
> 
> So it seems that it is indeed a very reasonable request that the W3C
> consider sharing bugzilla for HTML-based work that is happening outside of
> the actual W3C space, given that this is the case for WHAT WG, a group
> that is not chartered under W3C rules, is not obligated to follow W3C
> consensus policy, and works autonomous to the W3C... just like html4all. I
> can understand that Michael and the W3C executive may want to think about
> this for a day or so before reaching a decision, as it does establish a
> precedent and might open the flood-gates for numerous other requests (and
> so considerations regarding scalability, signal-to-noise, and use of
> resources need to be contemplated), however the reasoning that you have
> suggested should *NOT* be one of the factors under consideration, as it
> establishes a double standard and in fact un-does the whole point of
> creating the NotInW3CSpecYet keyword in the first place.
> 
> WebSRT is not a W3C work effort (nor has there been a request made to
> consider it as such), and is not yet under consideration by the W3C for
> inclusion in the HTML5 Draft in any formal way, and that point must be
> clearly understood.
> 
> JF
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 16:37:57 UTC