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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:18:30 -0800
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <D50D069E-9D95-4BBF-899B-3B4D4BC0863F@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Feb 15, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> 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.

I assume the problem is just that bugzilla was down.

>>>> "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".

It's an extension to HTML5 with HTML in the title and if our CfC goes  
through will be published by the HTML WG. But by that standard, HTML 
+RDFa would also be an "HTML specification". So I agree the term is  
not enlightening. Probably the least ambiguous thing to do is either  
list the three specs covered, or split the bug lists somehow.

>> 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.

Some people have discouraged the idea of creating more components  
because it would break people's existing tools. If others consider it  
important for clarity, then we can create new components (or some  
other distinguishing feature, such as keywords).

>> ...
>>> 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."

What I'm hearing is that you are not specifically looking to address  
the three issues listed in the HTML+RDFa status section, you just want  
the two status sections to use the same wording. Please correct me if  
my understanding is wrong.

Would it satisfy your request if we removed the list of three issues  
from the HTML+RDFa status section, and instead used the same status  
wording that we have for all previous HTML WG Working Drafts? That  
wording does not flag any specific issues, but it does have a general  
disclaimer. It would be consistent across all our publications.

We would also continue the issue marker mechanism to allow any issue  
to be flagged directly in our drafts, so long as it is reported to the  
Working Group, and we're asking Ian and Manu to extend that mechanism  
to our additional proposed drafts.

Received on Monday, 15 February 2010 23:19:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC