Re: Request for clarification on HTML 5 publication status (ISSUE-19)

On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 17:21 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> >
> > Thanks, Gregory, for scribing...
> >
> > Topics
> >     1. Convene HTML WG meeting of 2007-11-16T17:00:00Z
> >     3. ISSUE-19 html5-spec HTML 5 specification release(s)
> > full text: http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes
> 
> 
> The minutes say this:
> 
> <DanC> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/19
> DanC: had conversation with PTaylor about formal objection - action done
> ... completed action to email negative and non-responders - done
> Chairs have said the question does not carry -- WG will keep working  
> on spec
> <DanC> DanC found out non-responders are not ok to publish
> 
> I'd like to ask for some clarifications.
> 
> 1) Which non-responders are not ok to publish? What are their specific  
> objections and how can they be addressed?

I encouraged the non-responders to give this information in public,
but unless and until they choose to do so, I'm not at liberty to say.

The specific question I was investigating in ACTION-17 was:
are the W3C members whose patents might be impacted by an
HTML 5 publication sufficiently aware of the impact of this
decision that we should proceed over an outstanding formal objection?

After contacting several relevant W3C member organizations,
I came to the conclusion that no, we do not have a critical
mass of support. So Chris Wilson and I decided the question
does not carry.

> 2) Does this decision apply to the diffs document as well (which was a  
> separate question in the survey)?

Yes; the proposal to publish the diffs document was contingent
on publishing the spec.

"Shall we release HTML 5 differences from HTML 4 along with the HTML 5
specification as a W3C Working Draft?"
 -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/wd11spec/results


> Also, I'd appreciate it if the chairs could clearly state the decision  
> and the reasoning behind it on public-html for discussion, since not  
> everyone may have spotted it in the minutes.

I hope this message suffices.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 17:07:44 UTC