Re: ISSUE-53: mediatypereg - suggest closing on 2009-09-03

Hi Sam,

On Aug 21, 2009, at 6:29 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> That being said, it seems like we need to make a WG decision to go  
>>> one way or the other, and time is of the essence, since it will  
>>> take some time to draft an appropriate document once we have  
>>> decided what to do.
>> I can write a draft to do this in a few hours, if we decide it's  
>> the thing to do. It doesn't seem like the thing to do, though.
>
> Given the following list:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1063.html
>
> ... at this point, I'm assuming that issues 14, 30, 35 are ones that  
> you are intending to resolve by Last Call, and of the rest, issue 41  
> is the only one that has a significant potential for taking  
> significant time to integrate should it attract a proposal that we  
> decide is the thing to do.

I'm not sure how you drew that assumption from my incomplete list of  
issue statuses. That list was my personal attempt to classify the  
current state of issues, based on my best guess. I did not directly  
consult Ian or anyone else in making that list. Furthermore, the  
classification was incomplete - I listed a number of issues where I  
hadn't yet assessed the status.

This issue, ISSUE-53, is one that I specifically listed as not yet  
reviewed (at the time), in the email you cited. And Ian specifically  
indicated his willingness to take either proposed route to resolve  
this issue, while also stating his prefered outcome. So I'm not sure  
why you listed those other issues as the only ones Ian is "intending  
to resolve by Last Call".

To be more specific about my request to the Chairs, we need to decide  
at least some of the following questions soon:

1) Should HTML5's update to the text/html and application/xhtml+xml  
MIME types be:
     A) Inline in the HTML5 spec, as is the custom for other recent  
W3C specifications?
         OR
     B) Posted as an separate IETF RFC, updating the previous RFC for  
this purpose?

2) Do we need to decide the answer to #1 by Last Call?

3) If we need to decide the answer to #1 by Last Call, do we need to  
start the relevant IETF action to either update or obsolete the old  
HTML content-type RFC?

I think it is within the Chair's discretion to say that (2) and/or (3)  
do not need to happen by Last Call; they are purely procedural/process  
issues, and not technical issues. If the Chairs so rule, then we can  
resolve ISSUE-53, or at least put it in a state where it doesn't block  
LC but does block PR. If the Chairs feel that (1) needs needs to be  
answered and action must be taken before Last Call, then the Chairs  
need to assess consensus, or hold a poll to determine a decision, or  
determine that the answer to (1) is within Chairs' discretion and then  
tell us what the answer is. Since contacting the IESG, submitting an  
Internet-Draft, and getting it on the right standards track are all  
matters that, based on past experience, can take weeks or months to  
accomplish, the time to make these decisions is now. Delaying these  
decisions puts our Last Call target in jeopardy. This is the action I  
need from the Chairs.

If the Chairs are not ready to decide this now, may I put an action  
item on you, Sam, to ensure these matters are decided, and if so, what  
due date should I assign?

I do not believe this issue can progress further without some action  
or decision from the Chairs. I believe your response here is kind of a  
non sequitur and does not provide the needed action. Unless you mean  
to imply that we don't need to resolve this one way or the other by  
Last Call, in which case please make that clear so we can enter a  
decision.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Saturday, 22 August 2009 02:52:05 UTC