- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:22:55 -0400
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
On 10/08/2012 06:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: >> >> * Agree to rename the "HTML5 spec" component to "HTML spec", and only bring back specific bugs that address interoperability issues or can be addressed by a non-substantive change to the specification > > What is the reasoning behind this change? > I don't think that this is actually helpful, because users have to > register a bug against either the spec that we are taking to REC or > HTML.next. Since the spec that we are taking to REC is HTML 5.0, I > would prefer we keep this component as "HTML5" - it is far less > confusing. Alternatively, "HTML5-CR" or "HTML5-LC" or "HTML5.0" would > make sense to me, too. First, I'll note that this closely matches what the plan says (first sub-bullet of the first major bullet): http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#plan But to answer your question, I'll describe this in terms of how one commonly uses version control systems like git. Generally, there is a generic "master" branch on which work continues. Periodically there is a new branch created in which work is stabilized. In this case, what we are proposing to do is to make it clear that "master" is ongoing and that the new branch is for CR activities leading up to a 5.0 REC. During CR, we are intentionally locking things down. The only changes we should be expecting are ones that are non-substantial and ones that address interop issues. Additionally, we are proposing to impose additional process requirements for changes: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v3.html#cr - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 8 October 2012 22:23:23 UTC