Re: Patches merged or staged for week 50

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:

> hi Silvia,
>
> I have no issue with the current process for bug fixes and editorial
> changes  etc.
>
> >I think ultimately it's the W3C process document that answers this:
> interoperably implemented features in multiple UAs, right? HTML5.1 is not
> really HTML5.1 >until it reaches REC and before then anything can happen.
>
>  5.1 already includes features that do not meet these criteria, I would
> like to have a clear process for how these features are added regardless of
> their origin.
>

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: these criteria are only applied when the spec
goes to REC. We have a mandate in the HTML WG to work with the WHATWG and
that's what we are doing here.


>The WHATWG makes progress on features because of bugs being registered
> there and discussions happening on their mailing list and irc channels.
> These >discussions generally stem from browser vendors or Web developers.
>
> This can and does occur in the w3c space as well. So I take it new
> features can be added to the 5.1 working draft by filing bugs and
> discussion in the working group.
>

Absolutely!! In fact, it would be great if we had more technical
discussions on the list!

Regards,
Silvia.



>
> regards
> Steve
>
>
> On 8 December 2012 09:56, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I think ultimately it's the W3C process document that answers this:
>> interoperably implemented features in multiple UAs, right? HTML5.1 is not
>> really HTML5.1 until it reaches REC and before then anything can happen.
>
>
>
>
>