- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:46:17 +1100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > At this time, we find that the chairs find that the Working Group has > consensus on the above with the following modifications: > > Explicitly leave HTML5/HTML5.0 naming in external output -- including the > draft itself -- initially up to editors discretion subject to WG review. We > recommend keeping "5.0" in internal WG artifacts, such as bugzilla component > and branch names, for clarity. > > Honor request to substitute "substantive" for "technical" in the proposed > amendment to the A11y Task Force statement. > > Replace "Include hgroup in the list of at-risk features for HTML5" with > "Include portions of hgroup other than its parsing behavior and default > style in the list of at-risk features for HTML5. Anyone who wants to mark > hgroup parsing or style as at-risk would have to justify those items > separately." > > State that the existing master branch will be used as the basis for HTML 5.1 > and that text from the WHATWG and other sources may be incorporated whenever > the content meets with W3C consensus. > > The modifications are based on the following feedback: > > suggestion: rename HTML 5.0 to simply HTML 5 > request: substitute "substantive" for "technical" > multiple objections from Henri Sivonen I would also prefer we called the spec HTML 5.0, because HTML5 stands for the whole idea of new Web technologies. It would be preferable if the HTML spec - which is just a part of that idea - had a more explicitly identifiable name. It also indicates that there will be a 5.1 etc, which signals that this time around we won't get stuck with an aging spec. Regards, Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 21:47:04 UTC