W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > March 2014

Re: ISSUE-151: whatwg-references - Decision

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:14:06 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+cX=1CR3aBFYvn3=+9iFGen9_yHXjQ8oU7F1cv9JFdjtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On 03/26/2014 01:02 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
>> <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 03/19/2014 09:36 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>         Since this email has been sent out, the new editors have been
>>         appointed
>>         and the WG charter was finalized.  Additionally, the new editors
>>         have
>>         made significant updates to the status section in ways that may
>>         address
>>         this issue.
>>
>>         If this issue is important to you, please check the current
>>         document and
>>         work with the editors (either by responding to this email or by
>>         opening
>>         a bug).
>>
>>         Once all feedback (if any) has been addressed, the chairs may
>>         chose to
>>         issue a call for consensus.
>>
>>     As there has been no (as in ZERO) responses to this email, the
>>     chairs are choosing to interpret the silence as an indication that
>>     people are satisfied with the current wording of the status section.
>>
>>
>> Could you quote or cite the specific "wording of the status section"
>> that is being considered here?
>>
>
> Here is the status section:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/#status-of-this-document
>
> It is fairly short (I count eleven paragraphs plus three bullets).  In
> this section there are seven references to the WHATWG.  There is an
> additional reference to the WHATWG in the list of Editors.


OK, I have reviewed the status section. It would be useful to improve the
following wording:

   - "Work on this specification is also done at the
WHATWG<http://www.whatwg.org/>
   ."
      - I find this confusing since what is being worked on in the WHATWG
      is more of the nature of an input document to consider for acceptance,
      mutatis mutandis, in this specification. I'm afraid that as stated, this
      sentence produces more confusion that it eliminates.
   - "within the bounds of the W3C HTML working group
charter<http://www.w3.org/2013/09/html-charter.html>
   "
      - It would be useful to add text to the end of this of the nature
      "and W3C Process and Patent Policy" (with appropriate links);




>
>
>      Should anybody have input they would like to provide at a later date
>>     on this matter, the chairs would encourage that input to be provided
>>     in the form of bug reports, and for those with input to work with
>>     the editors to resolve the concerns.
>>
>>         - Sam Ruby
>>
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>          On 07/17/2012 02:41 PM, Paul Cotton wrote:
>>
>>             ISSUE-151: whatwg-references
>>
>>             http://dev.w3.org/html5/__status/issue-status.html#__
>> ISSUE-151
>>
>>             <http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-151>
>>
>>             The Chairs have decided to delay this issue until a) the new
>>             editors are
>>             appointed and until b) the revised WG charter is finalized.
>>               In addition
>>             the Chairs propose to take this issue up no earlier than
>>             near the end of
>>             the next Last Call.
>>
>>             /paulc
>>
>>             HTML WG co-chair
>>
>>             Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>>
>>             17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>>
>>             Tel: (425) 705-9596 <tel:%28425%29%20705-9596> Fax: (425)
>>             936-7329 <tel:%28425%29%20936-7329>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2014 18:14:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:57:26 UTC