Re: Proposal to publish HTML5 and vocab specs

Shelley Powers wrote:
> 2009/10/27 Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>:
>> Jirka Kosek wrote:
>>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Note that the WHATWG announced earlier today, after reaching zero
>>>> outstanding issues, that HTML5 was now at Last Call at the WHATWG.
>>> By "zero outstanding issues" you mean "zero outstanding issues from
>>> WHATWG point of view"?
>> It is still a significant milestone, whatever it is called, and even if the
>> W3C doesn't officially recognize it.  For a brief moment, we had a document
>> with at least a consensus of 1.  It may have been brief as bug reports
>> continue to come in.  It may have been something that more than one person
>> completely agreed with.  It definitely is something that a number of people
>> have at most small issues with.  And yes, there still are people who haven't
>> had their issues resolved to their satisfaction.
> 
> Please don't use "we" in this context. I'm not a member of WhatWG.

We, the W3C, have at least one person who stands behind the full 
document -- however briefly.  I don't believe we ever had that before. 
And that's typically how it starts.

>> But it still is a milestone nevertheless.  And one we can build upon. More
>> people will become satisfied, and at some point, hopefully soon, we will
>> have W3C Consensus, which will be another milestone.
> 
>>> Personally, I don't think that it was good idea to publish spec as
>>> WHATWG last call when it is not ready to go to last call in W3C -- this
>>> will greatly confuse people. At the end of you blog entry you wrote
>>> "...HTML5 is a joint effort of W3C and WHATWG groups..." -- I would
>>> expect that in joint effort groups are working closely together and that
>>> they synchronize their publication/review cycles as much as possible in
>>> order to not confuse people.
>> I don't understand.  I would think that having a document published with a
>> date at or beyond the WHATWG Last Call that clearly and unambiguously states
>> the W3C state of affairs would reduce rather than increase confusion.
> 
> Something about tail wagging the dog comes to mind.
> 
> Still, you seem to be responding in affirmation to Ian's request. My
> question is, what are you affirming?

I am for frequent publication.

> Publishing a new draft of HTML5? We're on the verge of making some
> pretty major changes to HTML5. And the last we published a "heart
> beat" draft, somehow that got misconstrued into being an affirmation
> of the draft.

Let's be clear.  What Julian was stating was that we had affirmed RDFa 
in HTML.  I simply stated that the level of affirmation (i.e., Working 
Draft) was precisely the same for RDFa in HTML as it was for Microdata. 
  It still is possible that neither of them will make it to CR.  Or both 
of them.  Or just one.

Somehow the statement that neither has particularly any level of 
guarantee is being misconstrued into being an affirmation.

> Well, I for one do not affirm the document as it stands now.

How, precisely, and just looking at the draft itself, is the current 
draft inferior to the previous published Working Draft?

> Ian also asked to publish the microdata vocabularies as a published
> draft. Are you affirming that?

My criteria hasn't changed -- as long as it is demonstrably a group 
effort, I support it going to FPWD.

> Shelley
> 
>>> Have a nice day,
>>>
>>>                                Jirka
>> - Sam Ruby

- Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 03:50:49 UTC