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

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Sam Ruby<> wrote:
> Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>> If someone publishes a Working Draft with many differences, can we
>>>> discuss each, or is it a case of all or nothing?
>>> I don't understand the question.
>> Sorry, I wasn't very clear.
>> Let's say an alternative draft changes how summary is handled, the
>> microdata section, and various other pieces of the Editor's draft. I'm
>> assuming we could propose the entire new draft, but we could also
>> propose each section, by itself. One document, multiple proposals.
>> Does that sound about right to folks?
> I'm still not following.  Propose as what?  Perhaps I have been confused
> because what we have in front of us is a proposal to publish a Working
> Draft.

Propose as alternatives to the specific section in the Editor's draft.

> Meanwhile, we have people working on Issue 32.  They aren't looking to
> rewrite the entire document.  I'll note that the early drafts I have seen
> made by a number of members of the PFWG on how they would like to see
> summary handled involve coordinated changes to a number of different
> sections.

I'm not talking about Issue 32, I'm talking about procedure moving forward.

Up to now, the edits have been related to one issue. There is a good
possibility of upcoming alternative HTML 5 specifications being
related to multiple issues.

> I guess it comes down to what the meaning of "proposal" is.  Ultimately, I
> see it as a set of diffs when applied to a document produces a new document.
>  Such diffs need not be constrained by section boundaries.

You see it as technology, I'm seeing it as a process. I don't want the
group's process to be dictated by the proposed technology, Sam.

> - Sam Ruby


Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 19:28:00 UTC