- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:12:06 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > Shelley Powers wrote: >> >> I followed the teleconference in IRC archives. A lot of stuff. >> >> Questions of clarification: >> >> Do we still have discussion when it comes to publishing a Working >> Draft, regardless of who publishes it? > > Yes. > >> Do we need consensus, or are all Working Drafts being published, >> unless someone actively protests? > > No, we don't need consensus. No, individual submissions are not > automatically published as Working Drafts. > > The normal course is that in order to publish a Working Draft a Working > Group decision is required. If the chairs can justify it, they can > authorize exceptions. We could, for example, decide to simply publish Ian's > draft at this time. > I'm assuming that this doesn't mean we'll have links from the HTML WG main page to alternative drafts, because a WD is a document that has gone through the FPWD process, which is governed by more formal procedures. My confusion is that I was thinking of our alternative specifications as Working Drafts, but they aren't. Not unless the group decides to replace the Editor's draft with one of the alternatives. >> If someone publishes a Working Draft with many differences, can we >> discuss each, or is it a case of all or nothing? > > No discussion is (or has been) forbidden. > Sure, I meant can we submit a formal proposal to adopt a piece from one document, and a piece from another, for incorporation into a third? > I don't see publishing a sentence or a paragraph or chapter 4.9.2 "The table > element" as a working draft. I can see (for example) either RDFa in HTML as > a separate draft from HTML5 OR as a part of HTML5. > Oh, I agree, the change should be substantial enough not to waste folks time. Preferably something that could easily incorporated, such as a replacement section. >> Is it true that the Working Group can't comment during Last Call? That >> we have to raise issues before then? > > My reading of the processes and procedures document is that consensus of the > Working Group is required prior to Last Call. I don't believe that > precludes people from changing their minds. > Makes sense, it's just that October is very, very close, and we're so very, very far apart. In fact, consensus seems to be inversely proportional to how close LC is. >> If this is true, is Last Call still on schedule for October? Do we >> know when in October? > > I do believe that Ian hopes to be ready for Last Call by October, but at the > moment, that's all it is: a hope and perhaps even an expectation. I will > say that unless we get the PF Working Group to make an exception to their > current plans and procedures, Ian will not have the feedback he needs[1] in > order to address ARIA integration by that time. Cynthia and StevenF both > indicated that they will look into it this week and will report back on a > request to expedite that one request in next week's call. > Seems to me we'd rather wait a bit and make sure we do it right than rush, but that's just my opinion. >> Thanks for clarification >> >> Shelley > > - Sam Ruby > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0279.html > Thanks Shelley
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 19:12:46 UTC