W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2007

Re: ready to publish "HTML5 differences from HTML4"?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:49:06 -0500
To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1182786546.6367.813.camel@pav>

On Sun, 2007-06-24 at 17:14 -0500, Robert Burns wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > I agree that publishing the spec should wait until the scheduled
> > review completes, but only presuming this WG publishes something
> > else to satisfy the heartbeat requirement first.
> Would not publishing the design principles as a working draft satisfy  
> the heartbeat requirement?

Yes, it would. I'm inclined to publish it soon too; maybe
at the same time as the differences document...

>  I've seen little objections to that  
> document and think it could be made ready for publication (at least  
> as a working draft if not final) rather quickly.

I intend to test those water soon. Here's hoping you're
right that there is little objection...

> > I hope you can accept publishing a document while these issues
> > are still open. I don't see how we can meet the heartbeat
> > requirement otherwise.
> In general, I would certainly support publishing working drafts while  
> issues are still open. However, on some of these issues I think it  
> would be irresponsible to publish with such serious issues left  
> outstanding. Again, I'm saying that these issues will dominate the  
> discussion long after they're resolved by the WG. It will be hard to  
> live down the misconception that "HTML5 is that new version that is  
> less expressive than the old version" mentality.

Yes, that is a risk...

>  Better to make sure  
> these mistakes are fixed before the first public working draft is  
> published.

I'm not so sure. I'm inclined to put the question formally to the WG.

> >>  From the discussions that have
> >> occurred so far, I would say the overwhelming consensus is that these
> >> features should NOT be dropped in HTML5.
> >
> > "overwhelming consensus" is a contradiction in terms, in W3C process.
> > In W3C process, if one person objects, there is not consensus. There
> > is no level of support sufficient to be called "consensus" as long
> > as objections remain.
> I have not really seen serious objections to including the assistive  
> technology semantics. Perhaps they occurred before I arrived, but  
> I've tried to diligently read everything that's passed since I joined  
> the working group.
> > It might be correct to say "the overwhelming majority of opinion"
> > or some such, but that would be based on a lack of information;
> > most WG members have not given their opinion. Perhaps
> > "the overwhelming argument that has been presented" is accurate.
> Is not "given an opinion" the same as "not given their opinion". My  
> understanding of WG rules was that an active objection needs to be  
> registered and a passive silence would not be counted as an objection.

I'm not suggesting that passive silence is an objection.

I'm suggesting that
 (a) most WG members haven't been heard from
     (which is no big deal; I expect we'll hear from a minority
      of the WG on most issues; "majority" is hardly relevant at all)
 (b) even members of the WG who have arguments to give might
    not have given them yet.

When the chairs put a question formally, everyone has one week
to speak or forever hold their peace. But until then, we
don't know how many people just haven't joined the discussion
yet but intend to eventually.

> >
> > Feel free to suggest any specific changes you want.
> >
> I'm not clear on how to do it.

Oops; sorry; I assume too much sometimes...

>  Perhaps I haven't read the materials  
> sufficiently, but isn't it appropriate to air the necessary changes  
> here on the email list.

Yes, but the burden is on those who want the changes to make
them fairly concrete. "detailed explanations for the semantic
changes in elements such as <ht>, <i>, <b>, <strong>, and <small>"
is not something the editor can just paste in.

>  Others have also added this to the wiki. What  
> else should we members of the working group do?

Spell out the "detailed explanations" that you want. Propose
text that, if the editor pasted it in, would satisfy you.

>  I'm not trying to be  
> facetious here, I honestly thought that airing things here on the  
> email list was the way we move the process forward to meet our  
> deadlines. If there's more I should be doing I'd be happy to.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 15:49:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:14 UTC