Re: Publish HTML5, RDFa heartbeats and Microdata, 2D Context and H:TML as FPWDs

On Feb 10, 2010, at 2:37 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Krzysztof Maczyński wrote:
>
>>> HTML Canvas 2D Context: http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/
>> There is an alternative draft by Doug Schepers and Eliot Graff. It
>> seems to me that no conclusion has reached on the issue of
>> integrating the two. Therefore I don't support this publication at
>> this time but may well do so in the future (there's no heartbeat
>> requirement). Our charter doesn't call for it and I want to ensure
>> broad consensus and participation, for which the HTML WG is in my
>> opinion too limited. I know the decision from before I joined the WG
>> that this API was in scope. But there are other groups in the W3C
>> which are better suited for this work. I suggest asking the WGs in
>> the Graphics Activity, Style Activity and the XSL-FO Subgroup if
>> they'd like to develop it with us in a task force.
>
> Neither Doug nor Eliot have put their draft forward for  
> consideration, and I strongly discourage anybody from putting them  
> on the spot until they are ready to do so.  As such, I will ask you  
> to either voluntarily withdraw this objection or personally put a  
> plan in place which definitively resolves this issue.
>
> As you indicated the scope issue has already been resolved, and  
> escalated up to and including the Director level.  If this is  
> something you wish to pursue, I would like to suggest that you  
> voluntarily decouple this from a publishing question and pursue this  
> at the appropriate level.


I would like to echo this sentiment. For this publication round, Ian  
offered his split draft, and Doug and Eliot have not (at this time)  
offered theirs for publication. While we have had some discussions  
about ways to combine efforts, in the end the chairs saw the following  
options:

- Ask Ian to revert the 2D Context split until we can somehow further  
determine how to advance the separate draft. We did not like this  
option, because it would reverse progress on an issue that was  
important to many Working Group members.
- Do not publish any draft that includes the canvas API this round. We  
did not like this option because it could give people the incorrect  
impression that the HTML WG "dropped canvas".
- Publish nothing for now, just wait until there is a clear single  
path forward. We did not like this option because it could lead us to  
fail to meet the heartbeat requirement for an indefinitely long time.
- Publish the one canvas API spec that has actually been put forward  
for publication. This seemed like the least problematic option.

If Doug and Eliot do request publication for their draft later, or if  
anyone else has a draft they want to put forward, then it will be duly  
considered. And we may yet find a suitable way to combine efforts down  
the road. But we do not want to halt progress in the meantime based on  
something speculative.

Regards,
Maciej