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

Shelley Powers wrote:
> 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.

I don't believe that we need to constrain ourselves to be talking about 
the (as in one) 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.

Between the last published Working Draft and the current Working Draft 
(April 23rd) and the next one (August xx), quite a few changes were made 
  relating to any number of issues.

At least three people proposed to come forward with alternative working 
drafts that address multiple perceived deficiencies in Ian's draft. 
Each (with the possible exception of Manu's) intended to address 
multiple issue.  To date, none of them have been presented for 
consideration by the working group.

>> 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.

You seem to be inferring how I might see things and are reacting to that.

I see it as one or more Working Drafts.  Possibly in parallel.  Possibly 
in succession.  Possibly with the same editors that have produced the 
previous drafts.  Possibly with a different set of editors.

New Versions (independent of their source) may address multiple issues 
that are present in prior (or concurrent) drafts.

I don't know how to say this any clearer.  Let me know if a phone call 
would help.

>> - Sam Ruby
> Shelley

- Sam Ruby

Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 19:39:57 UTC