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

On Feb 15, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> 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.
> No the problem is that reporting issues on the mailing list is not  
> sufficient to catch the editor's attention.

It looks like there actually was a problem, and Ian fixed it and  
posted to the mailing list (in response to an email from Sam that  
started your comments:

>>> 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.
> No, that is correct.
>> 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.
> RDFa and Microdata are different in that there's clearly not  
> consensus that they are in scope.
> So
> "* There is concern that continued development of this document  
> belongs in a different working group"
> appears to be a good annotation.

This concern seems to go beyond consistency.

The W3C Team, after consultation with the Chairs, has made a  
preliminary ruling that these documents are in scope:

My understanding is that this ruling is now being appealed. Thus, it  
is now in the W3C Team's hands. I don't think we need the status  
section to second-guess the W3C Team's process for addressing this. I  
assume that once they rule on the appeal, it will be clear that the  
documents either are in scope, or are not. Once that happens, it will  
not be relevant whether or not we have WG consensus on the scope  
issue, since the Working Group cannot overrule the Team on questions  
of scope.

That being said, if you believe there is still an issue for the  
Working Group that would be accurately represented by that statement,  
then I would ask you to file a bug that identifies the issue.


Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2010 00:12:54 UTC