W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

RE: clarification on Adobe Blocking

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:50:51 -0800
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D87C65F@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Masinter 
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 10:58 AM
To: 'Philippe Le Hegaret'
Cc: Dan Connolly; Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org); Carl Cargill
Subject: RE: Documents not in scope for HTML-WG

This is just one little issue in the big picture.

But I don't see any reason to give in, since
there are simple remedies.


A Working Group charter MUST include:

.. The nature of any deliverables (technical reports, 
reviews of the deliverables of other groups, or software),
 expected milestones, and the process for the group 
participants to approve the release of these 
deliverables (including public intermediate results)."

The working group chairs propose to publish 
several new documents as deliverables.

These deliverables not in the charter, and do
not have expected milestones. This is more
than just a "scope" question. (I'm sure you
can stretch the scope to cover how to 
eat cheese as an evolution of HTML4 if
you want to.)

I can think of two possible remedies:

1) update the "Status of This Document" of
   these documents so that it is clear they
   are not currently (until a charter update)
   deliverables of W3C HTML WG.
2) update the charter to include these
   deliverables, with milestones
1: Updating the "Status of This Document" of
these documents requires only someone
(the editor, with direction of the chairs)
to edit the documents before they are published.
I offered edits which were made to the
HTML5+RDFa document but not the others.

The working group chairs have refused
to request this change.

2: Updating the charter would require establishing
expected milestones for these documents, and 
then the director to notify the W3C Advisory
Committee of the charter change; the rationale
could be to split up the large document into
pieces that can be reviewed. Again, since this
is the intent, and there is general agreement
to doing this, there should be little difficulty
accomplishing this charter change.

The working group chairs have refused to
pursue a charter update.

I think there remain concerns about the
actual milestones for progressing these
documents, because of contentious issues
like distributed extensibility and its
effect on the metadata proposals, and
accessibility for canvas. But addressing 
those are crucial responsibilities for
the working group chairs to address, 
as required by the W3C process.

Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 18:51:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:10 UTC