Re: Patches merged or staged for week 50

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Silvia,
>
> >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.
>
> While I agree we should be working with the WHATWG, the updated charter
> talks in these terms[1]
>
> "The HTML Working Group will consider proposals for future specifications
> from Community Groups, encouraging open participation within the bounds of
> the W3C patent policy and available resources."
>
> Which does not indicate to me that proposed new features that originate
> from the WHATWG spec are automatically added to HTML 5.1
>

I think the relationship with the WHATWG is a special one since they are
working on the same specification as us. We want to make every effort to
provide a unified HTML specification to the world. Note that HTML5.1 was
not created as a branch of the WHATWG HTML specification, but of the W3C
HTML5 specification and WHATWG patches are only applied as they do not
contradict WG decisions (minus any mistakes I make, for which we have the
bug tracker).

I think we want to work on a principle of trust with the WHATWG and then
re-check decisions made there that this group disagrees with.


> I also think we need to consider cases where there are competing proposals
> for a feature (example srcset vs picture)
>


Absolutely. I have tried to make certain that where there are multiple
proposals for competing features those features do not get applied to the
spec before any decisions are made. This is why you will not find srcset in
the HTML5.1 spec (if you do, it's an honest mistake). I will continue to do
the same for any features that get pointed out to me that have competing
proposals. The "change proposal" process probably works for such competing
proposals for HTML5.1 as specified in the process document.


aside: I could not find the data element in 5.1 that is present in the
> WHATWG spec?
>

So, while I have merged a lot of patches, I have not yet gone through the
differences between the WHATWG spec and the HTML5.1 spec to determine any
features that had been held back from HTML5.1. It's on my list of things to
do. If you come across any, could you please point them out either in an
email on the list (which allows discussion of the feature) or directly in a
bug that can get fixed? Thanks!

Regards,
Silvia.



>
> regards
> SteveF
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/#liaisons
>
>
> On 8 December 2012 10:14, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>