Re: WG comments, Working Drafts, and Last Call -- clarification please?

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Sam Ruby<> 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

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

> 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]



Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 19:12:46 UTC