Re: CfC: return HTML 5.0 to Last Call

Hi Robin, Steve, PLH, All:

An update on the PF request ...

The relevant CfC in the PFWG[1] asks EITHER for testing or an RFC2119
redesignation to "informative."

As Robin notes, Steve responded to the PF concern by creating and
running tests whose results are clearly impressive.  Today's ARIA
telecon discussed these developments with Steve.[2]

We came to the following conclusions:

*	Marking the entire section "At Risk" would be excessive, as much
*	of it is correct.

*	There are a small number of assertions, perhaps a dozen, which
*	need to be corrected. Steve will be providing a list of these
*	shortly. He is also intending to file bugs on these items during
*	LC. Following today's discussion in the ARIA Task Force,
*	these are the only items we would consider "At Risk."

What is unclear to us is whether correcting these items, which would
involve edits to the normative text of the 5.0 specification during Last
Call, is practical. We do not seek to force HTML back to CR--that is not
our intent here.

I'm looking for suggestions for resolving the failures identified by
Steve's testing while keeping HTML moving toward PR and TR.

Janina

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2014Jun/0067.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2014/06/16-aria-minutes.html

Robin Berjon writes:
> Hi Janina,
> 
> On 13/06/2014 16:13 , Janina Sajka wrote:
> >However, we do believe there is one section of the candidate LC document
> >whose RFC2119 status may need to be changed. Therefore, we are
> >requesting that the following section be marked "At Risk" for the LC:
> >
> >http://htmlwg.org/heartbeat/WD-html5-20140617/dom.html#sec-strong-native-semantics
> >
> >PF notes that the normative requirements on user agents in this section
> >are not tested and believes that they cannot be appropriately
> >implemented from the specification alone.
> 
> I understand where you are coming from but I feel uncomfortable making this
> at risk (which does slate for removal) when it is in fact implemented, and
> implemented relatively well to boot!
> 
> Looking at these tests:
> 
>     http://stevefaulkner.github.io/html-mapping-tests/
> 
> If you forget about elements that are only in 5.1 (details, dialog) it
> actually looks pretty good. Sure enough, there are a few failures, but they
> don't look like showstoppers to me. The tests leave me rather optimistic
> overall.
> 
> Based on this, can you please clarify your concerns regarding
> implementability?
> 
> -- 
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/

Received on Monday, 16 June 2014 18:20:24 UTC