- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:51:23 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
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