- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:38:54 -0400
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "w3c-wai-pf@w3.org" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> (janina@rednote.net)" <janina@rednote.net>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> (jbrewer@w3.org)" <jbrewer@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
On 09/26/2012 04:47 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote: > Hi Sam, > > a few comments/questions > > Is it intended moving forward that any potential additions to HTML are > first developed in the form of an extension spec? Encouraged but not required. I'll simply add that this will be strongly encouraged for controversial features. > There appears to be no method for the WG to obsolete features from > HTML other than due to lack of implementation. Is this the case? Not at all. You have provided two counter examples to this thesis: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0399.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0388.html One or both could be integrated during CR: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v3.html#cr-integration Of course, doing so will require us to return to Last Call after CR, but that is already part of the proposed plan. > Can extension specs be developed that are not intended to be > potentially folded into the spec prior to 5.0 REC? For example the > maincontent element [1] Absolutely. > regards > SteveF - Sam Ruby > [1] http://www.html5accessibility.com/tests/maincontent.html > > On 25 September 2012 23:15, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> Based on feedback received to date, we have revised the 2014 plan: >> >> http://intertwingly.net/tmp/html5-2014-plan.html >> >> As a part of this update, we also have updated the Draft Decision Policy and >> the Model Public Permissive CR Exit Criteria: >> >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v3.html >> >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html >> >> We have also started a page which we will use to capture a list of features >> at risk: >> >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/HTML5.0AtRiskFeatures >> >> At the present time these documents are only intended to be snapshots >> demonstrating forward progress. After a brief period of discussion the plan >> itself will be updated to reflect these changes: >> >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html >> >> Meanwhile feel free to compare the draft 2014 plan to the original. A list >> of significant changes and change bars appear in the updated 2014 plan >> itself. >> >> The intent is to issue a Call for Consensus on this plan no earlier than >> early next week. We request that everyone let us know ASAP if you see >> anything in this plan that you are likely to object to during the Call For >> Consensus, >> >> - Sam Ruby >> >> >> On behalf of: >> Sam, Maciej, Paul, Janina, Philippe and Judy >> HTML Working Group Chairs, Protocols and Formats WG Chair & The W3C Team >> >> ---------- >> >> >> On 09/19/2012 04:33 PM, Paul Cotton wrote: >>> >>> The HTML Working Group has made much progress on HTML5 and related >>> specifications. The HTML Working Group Chairs and the Protocols and Formats >>> WG Chair have been asked by the W3C Team to provide a credible plan to get >>> HTML5 to Recommendation status by 2014. Challenges remain in achieving this >>> goal. We sought to produce a plan that achieves this date and that has >>> minimal risk of delays from unexpected events. >>> >>> We'd like to now propose our draft plan [1] to the HTML Working Group for >>> consideration. Here are the key points of our plan: >>> >>> - Revise the draft HTML WG charter to indicate an HTML 5.0 >>> Recommendation in 2014Q4 and an HTML 5.1 Recommendation in 2016Q4. >>> - Use Candidate Recommendation exit criteria to focus testing >>> where it is advisable (e.g. new features), without wasting time on testing >>> where it is inappropriate (such as when interoperability is already proven >>> on the Web). >>> - Use modularity to manage the size and complexity of the >>> specifications while reducing social conflict within a constrained timeline: >>> - Gain agreement that the remaining open issues can >>> proceed via extension specifications at first. Provide an opportunity to >>> merge extension specifications back into the baseline spec upon getting WG >>> consensus and after the extension specifications meet their Candidate >>> Recommendation exit criteria. >>> -Welcome the option of extension specifications that don't >>> merge back at all and instead proceed at different paces and possibly even >>> with different Candidate Recommendation exit criteria. >>> >>> We encourage discussion of this draft plan in response to this email. We >>> will also add this item to the respective agendas of the next meetings of >>> the HTML WG, the Accessibility Task Force and the PF WG. >>> >>> /paulc >>> >>> On behalf of: >>> Sam, Maciej, Paul, Janina, Philippe and Judy >>> HTML Working Group Chairs, Protocols and Formats WG Chair & The W3C Team >>> >>> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html >>> >>> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada >>> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 >>> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329 >>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 09:39:33 UTC