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

Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-07-30

From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:03:56 -0700
Message-ID: <FD7F4941A41A465AA749608DFA32CE23@joe1446a4150a8>
To: <public-html-wg-announce@w3.org>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
> this appears to be a matter upon which a formal vote will be 
> required.

I would expect any differences from what is now up there as ED would 
be published separately for simple review. If the branches and leaves 
are approved, then the new content replaces content in the main branch 
maintained by the existing editors. Hopefully we will not try to 
publish another couple of complete new spec(s) because of a few 
changes from what is there now.

So, as a fairly active reviewer, I want to the the same stuff I have 
been looking at plus if the revision is significant, then the changes 
are made using a process that offers the update, approves it, then 
replaces the old content with the new content without harm to 
unchanged stuff. In other words, I think if I wanted to change 
something significant, I would need to get the revision working and 
accepted before placing it into the Editor's Draft document.

Just from simple and complicated past experiences, if, for example, 
paragraphs and art for 6, say, is part of the current editors draft 
and those paragraphs are not part of the new content, I don't want to 
look at the old comtnet mixed in with the new. I just want to review 
the new content. Then when the new material is approved, it gets mixed 
into the official draft. I'm sure there are all kinds magical tools 
for keeping all the pieces making sense in full fidelity, but please 
let's not have three or four complete ED specs floating around having 
duplicated or only slightly altered branches.

Another example: If the new RDFn content is proposed to replace mf 
stuff that is in the editor's draft, then I want to see the 
replacement words, art, and layout all by itself working and reviewed 
and accepted before committing them into the current official ED under 
the careful scrutiny of the existing 'official' named editors and us 

So, potentially several votes:
accept the need to change something
accept the proposed changes
accept the updated ED.

So after the need is accepted (vote to accept the need to change), 
then a first step is just to publish the keystrokes on this list, or 
somewhere standalone so this WG and maybe other interested parties can 
see it. When this WG is happy (vote to accept changes) then it is 
incorporatated into the 'official' draft. Then if the update is 
significant, I think we should have a special vote to accept the new 
version (accept the updated ED) which then becomes the official public 

Thank You and Best Regards,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
To: <public-html-wg-announce@w3.org>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-07-30

> Chris Wilson wrote:
>> Additions to the agenda are welcome. If you plan to attend the 
>> telcon
>> and wish to place an item on the agenda, please reply to this 
>> message
>> with your agenda request.
> I'd like to discuss heartbeat requirements and publishing a new 
> Working Draft of "HTML 5 A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML 
> and XHTML". As apparently this is a matter of some controversy, I 
> this appears to be a matter upon which a formal vote will be 
> required.
> - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 02:04:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:51 UTC