- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2012 10:33:58 -0500
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On 12/08/2012 10:17 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote: > > Hi Sam, > > If it is the case that new features can be added to HTML5.1 as > described Is it a reasonable request that the main spec be merged? It certainly is a reasonable thing for the WG to discuss. Hopefully, the WG can come up with a consistent 'bar' for new features that applies independent of the source of the proposal. > I can continue to edit it as a separate spec and changes can be > pulled into 5.1 on the same basis and same level of WG oversight as > when they are pulled from the WHATWG spec. > > Regards Stevef - Sam Ruby > On 8 Dec 2012, at 14:53, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > >> On 12/08/2012 07:08 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 8 December 2012 11:14, Silvia Pfeiffer >>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com <mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>> >>> wrote: >>> https://accountaccess.edwardjones.com/ca-accounts/summary-of-accounts.action >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> I agree with the above in terms of implementation details of >>> implemented features. >>> >>> In terms author conformance requirements and advice the W3C spec >>> should provide what is agreed as the best text by the HTML WG, >>> regardless of what is in the WHATWG spec. >>> >>> In terms of new features the HTML 5.1 specification should >>> reflect decisions made in the HTML WG. Just as the WHATWG spec >>> reflects the decisions reached via the WHATWG process. >>> >>> I think that having CFCs for addition of new features to 5.1 >>> would be not be an undue process burden and would provide the >>> opportunity for initial review. >> >> I believe that emails with subject lines like "Patches merged or >> staged for week 50" should be sufficient for this purpose. However >> that only works if people who push back on specific changes provide >> a rationale and editors don't ignore that pushback simply because >> it is in the WHATWG spec. >> >> Note: I am not saying that either of those extremes apply in this >> situation. I am simply saying that those extremes (it's a feature, >> therefore it can't go in; it in the WHATWG spec, we must accept it) >> are things to avoid. >> >>> -- with regards >>> >>> Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG >>> >>> www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> | >>> www.HTML5accessibility.com <http://www.HTML5accessibility.com> | >>> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner >>> <http://www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner> HTML5: Techniques for >>> providing useful text alternatives - >>> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ >>> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/> Web Accessibility >>> Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html >>> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html> >> >> - Sam Ruby >> >
Received on Saturday, 8 December 2012 15:34:29 UTC