- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 22:31:48 -0400
- To: public-html-admin@w3.org
On 06/06/2014 04:33 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > In accordance with Plan 2014[1]: > > We think it is likely that the Working Group will make substantive > changes to the document as a result of Candidate Recommendation > Review. Therefore, in accordance with the W3C Process, we will > return to a short Last Call before requesting to advance to > Proposed Recommendation. > > the HTML Chairs are issuing a Call for Consensus to return HTML 5.0 to > Last Call. The document can be found here: > > http://htmlwg.org/heartbeat/WD-html5-20140617/ > > Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive > responses are encouraged. If there are no objections by Friday June > 13th, this resolution will carry. > > The proposed Last Call Working Draft states: > > The scope of Last Call feedback on this specification is limited to > changes that have taken place during the Candidate Recommendation > phase[2]. The Last Call period is expected to finish on 15 July > 2014. Once Last Call comments are addressed, the Working Group > expects to advance this draft to Proposed Recommendation. > > Note that some features marked as at risk in the current Candidate > Recommendation were removed[3]. The following features remain in the > draft at this time but may be removed due to lack of implementation: > > the DataCue interface; > <input type=time>; > drag and drop; > the new ruby model. In response to this CfC, we received a single comment (which included an indication that it was NOT intended as an objection): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Jun/0036.html We subsequently got the following clarification: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Jun/0044.html Based on discussions with the editors and the Interaction Domain Leader, the chairs have decided to take no action on PFWG request (i.e., request no change to publication) with the understanding that these items can be added to a subsequent CR should that be necessary. Therefore, this CfC passes. > - Sam Ruby, > on behalf of the HTML WG co-chairs > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#plan > [2] > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?chfield=bug_status&chfieldfrom=2012-12-17&chfieldto=2014-06-17&chfieldvalue=RESOLVED&component=HTML5%20spec&list_id=38742&product=HTML%20WG&query_format=advanced > [3] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24812 - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2014 02:32:16 UTC