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

Re: ACTION-128: Draft @summary voting text in conjunction with PF

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:34:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4A54F4CB.2090307@intertwingly.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> All due respect to Joshue, since he was the one tasked with creating the 
>> vote question (with PF), the text for this vote loads the deck against 
>> summary by tying it directly to HTML 4, while highlighting that your 
>> choice is already in the HTML 5 specification.
>>
>> Each should be given as recommended text, and spelled out in the vote. 
>> Bring out the specification text, as recommended by PF, for summary, 
>> list with the text extracted from the HTML 5 document (which shouldn't 
>> have been added until after the vote, to be fair), and then allow both 
>> to be voted on by their merits.
> 
> The actual text in the HTML5 specification is pages long and split across 
> multiple sections, so I don't think it's practical to include the actual 
> text with the vote. Also, I would not want the vote to lock us into 
> specific text, since we should still be able to improve the text further 
> in the future. It is merely the approach that matters, IMHO.
> 
> Having said that, the proposed vote text does point to the most important 
> section in HTML5 about this.
> 
> 
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> In this case, you have now excluded the option of making summary 
>> non-conforming, and left two options that say conforming and encouraged, 
>> and conforming but discouraged.  To be fair, we need an option for 
>> non-conforming to be included in the vote.
> 
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Joshue O Connor wrote:
>> Those suggestions are reasonable. Noted.
> 
> Joshue, so as to avoid the appearance of steamrolling you on this, I'd 
> like to suggest that you provide the next iteration of the proposal, if 
> you think we should take into account Shelley and Lachlan's comments 
> above. If you can propose something before about 1am PDT Thursday (0800 
> UTC), I should have time to comment before Sam's deadline.

Deadline?  No decisions will be made on the call.  The Thursday call 
will simply be to check status on the item and provide an opportunity 
for those who both are able to and wish to avail themselves to the 
opportunity to have a high bandwidth conversation on the topic.  Nothing 
more.

Joshue's status may be "here's a draft for people to discuss", in which 
case the discussion will start there and continue on the mailing list. 
His status may be "I'm still working on it, but here's some thoughts", 
in which case the thoughts will be in the minutes for all to see.  In 
fact, given the rapid change in landscape (spec changing in the past 24 
hours) I wouldn't be surprised if the later is the status.

I also intend to take Rob Sayre's input on the matter seriously:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jul/0038.html

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 19:35:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:47 UTC