- From: Philip TAYLOR (ret'd) <chaa006@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:57:23 +0000
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
[Apologies if this duplicates something you have
already seen (or will see); there seems to be a
hold-up at my SMTP relay, so I am re-posting this
message via an alternative route.]
Sam, if I understand your question correctly (and
I should add that I have just read the first part
of Dan C's more recent message to ensure that I
understand your message as best I can), then the
whole issue of whether or not to publish
"HTML 5: The Markup Language"
seems to hinge on whether or not the WG agrees
that the HTML draft should be split into
separate specifications (of which "HTML 5: TML"
would be one). But in his capacity as WG Chairman,
Mike Smith announced a (voluntary) moratorium [1]
on discussing this issue on 25-Nov-2008 at 07:48.
As that moratorium has not yet been lifted, it
seems premature to me to be discussing whether
or not to publish "HTML 5: The Markup Language".
I would very much like the moratorium lifted so
that the WG can attempt to resolve this vexed
question, and then move on to other matters.
Philip TAYLOR
--------
[1] On 25-Nov-2008 at 07:48 Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
> Speaking in my official position as one of the current co-chairs
> for the group, I'd like to ask that we all agree to a voluntary
> moratorium for the time being on further discussion about if/how
> the existing HTML5 draft should be split into separate specs.
>
> I think it's been useful to have a discussion about it, but we are
> now at a point in the discussion where there really is not much
> new information being put forward. So I think at this point, Chris
> Wilson and I need to take a look at the record of the discussion
> and make a decision about how best to work further with the group
> on getting a resolution to the discussion.
>
> So please refrain for the time being from posting further messages
> to the list on the spec-splitting topic. That includes follow-ups
> or replies to other messages. For those cases, you are of course
> free to post replies off-list, including to me directly if it's
> something you want me to read. I just ask that you don't post them
> to the list for now.
>
> --Mike
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 15:58:00 UTC