- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:18:31 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: > > I am interpreting Ian's response as a positive affirmation that other > than issue 41, all of the remaining could be incorporated into the draft > in a matter of days should the Working Group decide that a change was > needed. All of the remaining what? All I said about "a day" was that if we needed to write an I-D for text/html, I could do that in about a day, but that I thought that was the wrong way to do things. > My understanding is than Ian considers, for example, issue 8 as closed, > though the Working Group does not. In operational terms, that means > that he plans no further action on that item until or unless he gets > either new information or direction from the working group. By > contrast, the three I listed I was assuming that Ian was planning on > working on, and indeed he confirmed that. Rather than assuming anything about the issue tracker, I recommend using the actual issue lists that the chairs have told me to maintain, namely the bugs database, the pending list of e-mails, and the XXX markers. > Issue 53, the subject of this email, is an example of an issue that Ian > identified as only taking a few hours. Again, I was simply asking Ian > if the bulk of the remaining issues could also be done in an unspecified > "few" hours each; and I am treating Ian's response as the closest I am > likely to get to a "yes" from him at this time. Please don't read between the lines of what I say -- I say exactly what I mean, no more and no less. > > 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? > > Please forgive the indirect answer, but what we need by Last Call is a > draft that enjoys the consensus of the Working Group. I personally have > no opinion on question #1 (or more precisely: I can live with either), > and indeed, I view the proper role of a chair to be to not to make such > decisions, but rather to assess the consensus of the group. Could you assess the consensus of the group on this issue, then? I need to know whether I need to do 1B above by last call. > 1) The only identified issues that I am concerned about as potentially > requiring significant editorial effort once a decision is made are > issue-35 (aria-processing), issue-41 (distributed-extensibility), and > issue-74 (canvas-accessibility). Of course, one may never know what one > might find when one turns over a rock, but of the issues I know of, > issues 35 and 74 are the ones that I believe that the working group > would find that the current draft does not adequately address, and that > these three are the only ones where the mechanics of incorporating a > decision of the Working Group into a Editors Draft is more than a few > days worth of work each. Issue 35 is done. I am not aware of any bugs, e-mails, or XXX markers regarding the other ones, so I can't estimate how much time they would take -- I don't know what they are. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 22 August 2009 20:18:22 UTC