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

Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:28:55 -0400
Message-ID: <4A7345F7.3020904@digitalbazaar.com>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
CC: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Given the number of objections, I don't believe that they can all be
> resolved by Monday, so here are the options I have heard so far.
>  1) Publish Ian's draft as is, along with the HTML 5 differences
>     from HTML 4. [SR]
>  2) Publish Ian's draft, the HTML 5 differences from HTML 4, and
>     Manu's draft. [LM, JF1]
>  3) Publish Ian's draft, the HTML 5 differences from HTML 4, and
>     Mike's draft. [LM, JF1]
>  4) Instruct Mike Smith to work with Ian to incorporate [text to
>     be provided by John Foliot] into Ian's draft [JF2]
>  5) Publish Ian's draft. [LHS]
> I am not happy including options that suggest publishing documents that
> the authors themselves have not indicated are ready to be published, so
> if Mike or Manu (et. al.) request that options 2 or 3 respectively be
> removed, that particular option will not go forward.

I would like for option #2 to be removed from the poll.

In fact, I'd like there to not be a poll and have Ian's draft published
to meet the heartbeat requirement. We should talk about the other two
documents and modifications separately.

Concerning HTML5+RDFa -- there is one more item, spec text for
preserving xmlns: in the non-xml, HTML5 DOM, that needs language added
to the HTML5+RDFa draft. This may take up to a week or two to discuss in
the RDFa TF, therefore I don't feel comfortable pushing the document
into FPWD at this point. We had also discussed addressing this issue on
the RDFa TF call, and I don't want to move forward with HTML5+RDFa until
there is agreement in that community to do so.

I certainly appreciate Larry, Ben and John asserting that all of these
documents should be published at some point -- I agree. I'm trusting
that Sam will find a way forward, when the time comes.

Just to be crystal clear on the reasons that I'm asking for option #2 to
be removed from the poll (as well as the rest of the options):

* They are separate issues to the heartbeat requirement.
* Actively demonstrating that there is no ill will toward having Ian's
  document published as part of a heartbeat requirement.
* Actively demonstrating the desire to see the HTML5 spec continue to
  move forward.
* FPWD for Mike's document and HTML5+RDFa should be handled
  separately, as the issues will be more manageable if they are
  separated and not discussed under the pressure of a heartbeat

By doing this, I am setting the following expectations. I expect the
following things to happen in the next month or two:

* Sam and the rest of HTML WG will ensure that Mike's document,
  HTML5+RDFa, and John Foliot's modifications, are published in some
* FPWD is the only proposed format so far, so that's the
  expectation as far as document format is concerned.
* If a vote must occur before publication, as was the case for Ian's
  HTML5 spec, then that is acceptable.

I trust that by not bundling the alternative proposals together in the
HTML WG's heartbeat requirement, that each will still be addressed
immediately after the heartbeat requirement is met.

In other words:

I trust that we will be dealing with publishing HTML5+RDFa, Mike's
document and John Foliot's changes right after HTML WG meets it's
heartbeat requirement by publishing Ian's current spec.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 19:29:36 UTC

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