- 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