RE: clarification on Adobe Blocking

That's all there was, Sam. Who told you there was
a "Formal" objection?


-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ruby [] 
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:19 AM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret; Shelley Powers; HTMLWG WG
Subject: Re: clarification on Adobe Blocking

Larry Masinter wrote:
> Astounding

I am going to presume that this is in response to the chairs request to 
post the Formal Objection on the public-html mailing list.  This despite 
the fact that I don't see the words "Formal" or "Objection" any place in 
this email.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Masinter 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 10:58 AM
> To: 'Philippe Le Hegaret'
> Cc: Dan Connolly; Michael(tm) Smith (; 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.

Correction: while the co-chairs have made the Call for Consensus, the 
request to publish came from the editors of these documents.

> 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 believe that following response from PLH is relevant here:

> 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.

We have a process for requesting changes:

We have not refused anybody the opportunity to request changes via this 

> 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.

The chairs reviewed the need to amend the charter with the Director:

> 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.

The concerns that have been documented are reflected in the document 
themselves.  Here's an example:

> Larry
> --

- Sam Ruby

Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 19:30:23 UTC