- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:33:40 -0700
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
On Jul 28, 2009, at 10:04 PM, Larry Masinter wrote: >> Ian, Anne, Mike: it is time to meet our heartbeat requirements. >> Would >> it be possible for each of you to do whatever magic it takes to >> produce >> a new published draft (and accompanying HTML 5 differences document)? > >> I'm quite willing to go with lazy consensus on this, so unless >> anybody >> objects to us replacing the 23 April draft with a more recent >> version, >> and does so by the time we complete our next call (possibly to be >> scheduled for 30 July), then I will view that as a group decision to >> publish. > > I object to the working group ONLY publishing a new draft of > the Hixie fork of the HTML5 specification, because the industry > and the public are already confused enough about the state of > the activities of the W3C HTML working group and the process > we are embarking on. > > My objection would be satisfied if we also simultaneously published > Mike Smith's document and/or Manu's fork as First Public Working > Drafts along with a clear public explanation of the process we > are now engaging. Publishing an FPWD is a bigger deal than publishing a WD. First, FPWD triggers a patent review clock where an ordinary working draft does not (the next step after FPWD to trigger a patent review time limit is Last Call). Thus I don't think fast track lazy consensus is appropriate for FPWD, as opposed to a normal Working Draft. And indeed, for the FPWD of the current HTML5 draft, we held a formal vote and even delayed some time after that for closer examination of objections from IBM and Microsoft reps, among others. Second, for a new document to be published as a Working Draft, Sam has asked for at least three independent supporters. I don't think we've done that assessment for either of the documents you cite. And finally, I don't think the author of either of the alternative drafts has stated their readiness to publish a First Public Working Draft yet. While I'm sure all of the above obstacles can be overcome, I don't think we should miss our heartbeat requirement while waiting to deal with them. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 05:34:22 UTC