W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Who is the Intended Audience of the Markup Spec Proposal?

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:47:37 -0800
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Message-id: <0424A8DC-EC7D-46B4-80DA-83CE321F1FB7@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On Jan 26, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> I'd like very much to lift that moratorium, but apparently Chris has  
> been tied up in some sort of release :-).  I'd prefer not to  
> unilaterally lift this without his concurrence.  I'm sure that this  
> will be resolved shortly.
> But meanwhile, this discussion is very public, as are the rules for  
> publishing a FPWD:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#first-wd
> I've provided that link several times.  Section 7.4.1 is fairly  
> short. My read of that section is that lifting of the moratorium  
> should not be considered in any way a prerequisite for this  
> decision, but I would like to see the moratorium lifted anyway,  
> making the point moot.
> Meanwhile, I'd appreciate Ian answering the questions I asked.

If we had consensus or a charter requirement to put this document on  
the REC track at all, then I would agree that publishing as an FPWD  
does not require full consensus on all the details.

However, whether this document should be placed on the Recommendation  
track is exactly the point in contention, and exactly the point we  
have been asked not to discuss for the past few months. Note that the  
rules you cited are part of a section titled "7.4 Advancing a  
Technical Report to Recommendation", which starts by saying "In  
general, Working Groups embark on this journey with the intent of  
publishing one or more Recommendations." I do not agree that we can  
put a document on the REC track in the first place, without meaningful  
discussion, let alone consensus. Certainly it is possible for the REC  
track process to be stopped early, as outlined in Section 7.5, but I  
do not think that possibility means that starting down the REC track  
in the first place is something to be taken lightly.

I will further note that, in this case, publishing as a WD is not  
required to have meaningful public review. The Editor's Draft is  
already available to the general public, and we can publicize it as  
much as we want, or freeze a specific version for review, without any  
formal process. Thus, I do not think resolving the root issues here  
will block substantive review.

Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 02:48:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:41 UTC