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

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2010, at 3:36 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Thanks.
>>> Nits:
>>> "The working groups maintains a list of all bug reports that the 
>>> editor has not yet tried to address and a list of issues for which 
>>> the chairs have not yet declared a decision. The editor also 
>>> maintains a list of all e-mails that he has not yet tried to address. 
>>> These bugs, issues, and e-mails apply to all HTML specifications, not 
>>> just this one."
>>> The first link
>>>  a list of all bug reports that the editor has not yet tried to address
>>> produces zero results, so it appears something is wrong with the 
>>> query part.
>>> ...
>>
>> This is not fixed. Should I open a bug report?
> 
> Which spec? The bug links all work for me.

Now they do. It would have been great if it wasn't required to raise a 
bug to get something like this fixed. And also, if the editor would 
actually reply over here.

>>> "These bugs, issues, and e-mails apply to all HTML specifications, 
>>> not just this one."
>>> s/HTML specifications/specification/
>>> unless we want to discuss what exactly an "HTML specification" is :-)
>>
>> This is not fixed. Should I open a bug report?
> 
> The actual situation is that HTML5, HTML Microdata, and HTML Canvas 2D 
> Context are using the same set of bug components right now. If you have 
> a better term to refer to that set of three specs, feel free to suggest 
> it, either by email or in the form of a bug. It would not be accurate to 

I did. Here. The suggestion is not to say "HTML specifications", but 
simply "specification". Microdata is *not* an "HTML specification".

> say "These bugs, issues and e-mails apply to all specifications", 
> because it's not true that they apply to all specifications ever, all 
> W3C specifications, or even all specifications published by this group. 
> Just that set of three (currently).

In which case I recommend that we create the products in Bugzilla now, 
so that the link can be accurate.

> ...
>> Raised as <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9001>.
> 
> Instead of filing a bug about wording of the status section, could you 
> please file bugs about the underlying issues? That is, what are the 
> problems that are identified by these two statements:
> 
>    * There are one or more alternate methods of adding data without 
> using RDFa, such as [microdata].
>    * There is concern that continued development of this document 
> belongs in a different working group." which I think is very helpful in 
> understanding the status of these documents.
> ...

What I requested (again and again) is that the Status sections be made 
consistent. See:

"That being said, other wording would be ok as well, as long as it's 
consistent in both specs."

> ...

BR, Julian

Received on Monday, 15 February 2010 23:02:42 UTC