Re: CfC: to publish a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of HTTP Form Extensions

Hi Janina,

On 03/03/2015 21:44 , Janina Sajka wrote:
> 2.)	Now that the ARIA portions of HTML are celled out into a
> stand-alone module, I would suggest we should also make this document a
> joint HTML & PF deliverable, via the TF. My primary interest is to a.)
> make sure we get regular review in PF's ARIA subteam; and b.) assure the
> public that we're coordinating.

It isn't clear to me how either of those goals requires a joint 
deliverable. Joint deliverables are costly in terms of overhead, they 
should be reserved for absolutely required cases.

The public can be assured that we're coordinating simply by seeing the 
many great bugs and pull requests coming from PF!

Additionally, the hope is for this document (and ideally for as many 
HTML documents as possible) to switch to the new automated publication 
system. Currently, joint publications are not supported by the system.

> 	I would note that PF put a lot of work into negotiating ARIA in
> 	the HTML 5.0 spec with the HTML-WG, so I don't feel this is actually a new
> 	request.

Is there any reason not to like the work that was done to date? Adding 
procedure on top of a setup that has produced what I think is good 
output seems precisely like adding something new to me.

> 	3.)	The large majority of PF's ARIA team members are heavily
> 	engaged in the weeklong CSUN conference this week. There's very
> 	little opportunity for  them to review this FPWD by the 11th.
> 	Would a week's extension be acceptable;?

Is there an expectation that PF might oppose there being a document 
describing ARIA in HTML? Because that is essentially what the FPWD is 
about. After that, the content can be changed pretty much every day so I 
wouldn't see it as the focus of the question here.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2015 12:52:37 UTC